Every year around this time the Fitzhugh runs a special page about the dangers of drinking and driving. Every year this page is sponsored by local individuals and businesses who want to stand behind that message.

It’s nothing major, just a little reminder to stay safe while readers are out enjoying some holiday festivities. The sponsors, appropriately, are made up largely of local bars, liquor stores and taxi companies. Our local MP, Rob Merrifield, has also been a sponsor of this page for as long as we can remember.

Until last Thursday, at least.

After initially agreeing to again participate in the “Don’t drink and drive page” last Wednesday, Merrifield’s constituency manager emailed to cancel the MP’s ad the following day. Now, it’s entirely up to any given advertiser how and where they spend their advertising dollars, but we couldn’t help but wonder what changed in those 24 hours that convinced Merrifield to pull his ad.

His constituency manager seemed to suggest it was because our newspaper, unlike other newspapers in the region, doesn’t run the opinion articles that Merrifield regularly submits.

“I have just become aware that the Fitzhugh does not print any of Rob’s MP Reports – is there some reason for that?” she wrote. And, in the very next sentence: “Unfortunately I have been told that I will have to cancel this ad order for the ‘Don’t Drink and Drive’ feature.”

Initially, this seemed like a pretty clear indication that Merrifield expected more than just the business-card-sized ad for his money; he expected a platform to spread his point of view, as well. That, of course, is not something we are prepared to go along with. Ad space is for sale; editorial space is not.

But that got us thinking. The Fitzhugh has been around for six years now and we have never run Merrifield’s column. That never stopped him from sponsoring the “Don’t drink and drive” page in the past. Why now, on Dec. 1, 2011, of all days?

It wouldn’t have anything to do with the editorial we published that day, would it?

In case you missed it, in this space last week we called Merrifield out for his recent behaviour in Parliament. Specifically, we questioned why he was using his opportunity to speak during Question Period to inquire to his own government about the policies of the NDP, something which we noted is not only self-serving but also against the rules of procedure. It wasn’t personal, more of an illustrative example that led into a broader discussion of the erosion of parliamentary traditions.

Then, within hours of that editorial being published, Merrifield’s ad was pulled. Coincidence? 

Again, it is an advertiser’s prerogative to spend advertising dollars as they please and, in most cases, these decisions would not warrant mentioning publicly. But there is a public interest in what seems to be going on here.

While the amount of ad money at stake in this particular instance is almost trivial, the principle is an important one. A functioning democracy depends on independent media that won’t allow news and opinion content to be influenced by advertisers.

Whether a politician advertises with us or not, we won’t provide him or her with regular space for a column. MPs, in particular, already have ample opportunity to get their message out through the news media. When they want to speak directly to constituents, they have the parliamentary press and Canada Post at their disposal. MPs spend about $10 million a year in taxpayer dollars printing and mailing partisan material to Canadians.

Similarly, whether a politician advertises with us or not, we won’t refrain from criticizing him or her when we think criticism is warranted. We consider this to not only be our right, but also our responsibility.