Hockey_Night

 Copilot:

USA; historically, have tariffs been enacted by progressive or conservative administrations?

Historically, both progressive and conservative administrations in the U.S. have enacted tariffs, but their motivations and patterns have differed depending on the era and political priorities:

🏛️ Early U.S. Tariff History (1790s–1930s)

Federalist and Whig administrations (precursors to modern conservatism) favored high tariffs to protect American industry and generate revenue.

Republican administrations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g. McKinley, Taft) were staunchly pro-tariff, aligning with industrial interests.

Progressive-era Democrats, notably Woodrow Wilson, enacted lower tariffs—the 1913 Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act was a major progressive reform aimed at reducing protectionism and promoting competition.

📉 New Deal and Post-War Era (1930s–1970s)

After the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 (enacted under Republican President Hoover), which worsened the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Democrats shifted toward reciprocal trade agreements and lower tariffs.

This marked a long-term bipartisan consensus favoring trade liberalization, especially through institutions like GATT and later the WTO.

🔁 Recent Decades (1980s–Present)

Conservative administrations (e.g. Reagan, Bush) generally supported free trade, but with strategic protections (e.g. steel tariffs).

Progressive Democrats (e.g. Clinton, Obama) also favored global trade, though with labor and environmental safeguards.

Donald Trump’s administration broke with recent conservative orthodoxy by implementing broad tariffs on China, steel, aluminum, and other goods, emphasizing economic nationalism                           

                                                                                            

f you're curious about how these shifts affected specific industries or regions, I can dig deeper into case studies or economic impacts.

During what years was Ronald Reagan president? And did Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump ever have a personnal relationsship?

🇺🇸 Ronald Reagan served as the 40th President of the United States from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1989.

As for a personal relationship between Reagan and Trump, there’s no evidence of a close or ongoing personal connection. Here's what we do know:

🤝 Interactions and Admiration

Admiration from Trump: Donald Trump has frequently expressed admiration for Reagan, especially for his communication skills and conservative legacy. He even installed a large portrait of Reagan in the Oval Office during his presidency.

No documented friendship: Reagan was already in his 70s and nearing the end of his political career when Trump was rising as a New York businessman in the 1980s. There’s no record of personal meetings or correspondence between them.

Symbolic comparisons: Trump has often invoked Reagan’s name to bolster his own political image, though historians note significant differences in style and policy—especially on trade, where Reagan favored free trade and Trump leaned toward protectionism.

So while Trump may have admired Reagan and used his legacy symbolically, they didn’t share a personal relationship in any meaningful or documented way. If you'd like, I can dig into how their economic philosophies diverged—especially on tariffs and trade.

The Ontario government recently ran ads with a political in the United States? I was frankly surprised; is this even legal, or even customary?

You're absolutely right to be surprised, Louise — it's unusual, but not illegal. Here's what happened and why it stirred up so much attention:

🇨🇦 Ontario's Political Ad Campaign in the U.S.

In October 2025, the Ontario government, led by Premier Doug Ford, launched a $75 million anti-tariff ad campaign on U.S. television networks. The ads featured edited audio clips from a 1987 speech by President Ronald Reagan, in which he criticized tariffs. The goal was to sway Republican-leaning American voters against U.S. trade duties that were hurting Ontario’s economy.

⚖️ Is It Legal?

Yes — it is legal for foreign governments to run issue-based advertisements in the U.S., especially if they don’t advocate for or against a specific candidate. According to legal experts:

The U.S. has broad protections for political speech, even for foreign entities.

As long as the ad doesn’t constitute electioneering (i.e., directly supporting or opposing a candidate), it’s generally permissible under U.S. law.

🤔 Is It Customary?

Not really. While foreign governments sometimes run public diplomacy or tourism ads in the U.S., it’s rare for a provincial government to engage in explicit political messaging aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion or policy.

The Ontario ad was strategically timed to air during major U.S. events like the World Series, maximizing visibility.

It caused a diplomatic stir: President Trump abruptly ended trade talks with Canada, accusing Ontario of interfering in U.S. affairs.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation criticized the ad for using Reagan’s words without permission, though legal experts noted that public domain speeches can be used in this way.

🧭 Bottom Line

Legal? ✅ Yes, under U.S. free speech laws.

Customary? ❌ No, it’s highly unusual — especially for a provincial government to intervene in another country’s political discourse.

Effective? Debatable. It drew attention, but also backfired diplomatically, at least in the short term.

Would you like to explore how this fits into broader trends of foreign influence or public diplomacy? Or maybe look at how U.S. laws treat foreign political ads more generally?

I know there was a great to-do about Russian interference in elections. But this was buying ad time in a high viewership context. Who sold the time for those ads??

Great observation, Louise — you're absolutely right to notice the contrast. Here's what we know about who sold the ad time for Ontario’s Reagan-themed anti-tariff campaign in the U.S.:

📺 Who Sold the Ad Time?

The Ontario government purchased ad slots during the World Series broadcast, which aired on Fox Sports in the U.S. While the exact media buyer hasn’t been publicly named, the ad time was likely sold through:

Fox Corporation’s advertising division, which handles national ad placements for high-profile events like the World Series.

A U.S.-based media buying agency acting on behalf of the Ontario government, which is standard practice for international ad campaigns.

These ads were aired during Game 1 and Game 2 of the World Series, maximizing exposure to a conservative-leaning American audience.

🧠 Why This Is Different from Russian Election Interference

Ontario’s ads were public, issue-based, and attributed to a government — not covert or deceptive.

Russian interference involved fake social media accounts, bot networks, and undisclosed funding to sow division and influence electoral outcomes.

Ontario’s campaign, while controversial, was legal under U.S. law and did not advocate for or against a candidate, which is the key legal threshold for foreign political advertising.

                                                                                 

If you’d like, I can dig into how media buying works for foreign governments or how U.S. law distinguishes between legal influence and illegal interference.

Could an outside government do this same thing in Canada: advocate for its interests during Hockey Night in Canada?

Yes — a foreign government could legally run issue-based ads during a high-profile Canadian broadcast like Hockey Night in Canada, but there are important restrictions under Canadian law that make it less flexible than the U.S. system.

🇨🇦 What Canadian Law Allows

Under the Canada Elections Act, foreign entities are prohibited from participating in partisan election advertising — meaning they cannot promote or oppose a candidate or party during an election period.

However, issue-based advertising (e.g., trade policy, environmental concerns, diplomatic positions) is not automatically banned, as long as it:

Does not mention candidates or parties

Is not coordinated with Canadian political actors

Complies with transparency rules, including disclosures of who paid for the ad

So yes, a foreign government could advocate for its interests — say, opposing Canadian tariffs or promoting bilateral cooperation — during Hockey Night in Canada, as long as it avoids partisan content.

                                                                                     

Would you like to explore how these rules have been tested in past Canadian elections or how platforms like CBC handle political ad disclosures?

Has anybody actually done anything like this in Canada??

Great question — and the short answer is: not quite like Ontario’s Reagan ad in the U.S., but there have been a few politically charged moments involving foreign influence or messaging in Canadian broadcasts, especially around hockey.

Here’s what I found:

🏒 Political Messaging During Hockey Broadcasts

No clear precedent of foreign governments buying ad time during Hockey Night in Canada:

There’s no public record of a foreign government purchasing television ad space during Hockey Night in Canada or similar high-profile Canadian broadcasts to advocate for their national interests.

Canadian broadcasters, especially the CBC, are subject to strict advertising and political content regulations, particularly during election periods.

Political overtones during international hockey events:

During the 2025 NHL 4 Nations Face-Off Tournament, political tensions between Canada and the U.S. — especially over trade — spilled into the hockey arena.

Canadian fans booed the U.S. national anthem in Montréal, reflecting public frustration with U.S. trade threats under President Trump.

While this wasn’t a paid ad campaign, it shows how sports broadcasts can become political flashpoints, especially when national identity and economic tensions intersect.

Academic analysis of Hockey Night in Canada’s political economy:

Scholars have examined how Hockey Night in Canada has historically been used to reinforce national identity, and how its advertising and ownership structures reflect broader political and economic dynamics.

However, these studies focus more on domestic political and cultural narratives, not foreign influence.

🧭 Bottom Line

No known case of a foreign government buying ad time during Hockey Night in Canada to push its policy agenda.

But the symbolic power of hockey in Canada makes it a tempting platform — and political tensions have certainly surfaced during international games.

Canadian laws and broadcasting norms likely deter foreign governments from attempting the kind of bold, high-visibility campaign Ontario ran in the U.S.

Sources: CBC News – Political backdrop of 4 Nations tournament Canadian Journal of Communication – Political Economy of Hockey Night in Canada Academia.edu – Political Economy of HNIC The Conversation – How hockey’s politics played out at the 4 Nations

Would you like to explore how Canadian law might respond if, say, a U.S. state or foreign ministry tried to run a similar campaign here?

How about ads inviting Canadians to visit the US; have there been any during this US Administration?

🇺🇸 During the current Trump administration (2025), there have been no major U.S. government-sponsored tourism ad campaigns targeting Canadians, especially not during high-profile Canadian broadcasts like Hockey Night in Canada. In fact, the tone of cross-border travel has been notably tense:

🧳 What We Found

No federal tourism ads: The U.S. federal government has not run national tourism campaigns in Canada during this administration. This contrasts with past efforts like “Discover America” under Obama, which actively promoted U.S. travel abroad.

State-level and private campaigns: Some U.S. states and tourism boards (e.g. Florida, New York, California) continue to advertise in Canada, but these are localized and commercial, not political.

Chilling effect on Canadian tourism: According to PBS and AP reports, many Canadians have cancelled U.S. travel plans due to:

President Trump’s tariff disputes and insults toward Canada

Reports of aggressive border searches and detentions

A general sense of diplomatic hostility, especially after Ontario’s Reagan-themed ad campaign led Trump to terminate trade talks with Canada

                                                                         

If you're curious, I can dig into how Canadian tourism boards have responded — or how travel sentiment has shifted between provinces and U.S. border states.