most people in the world outside of the united states would associate draconian rules regarding advertising with the political right, and not with the political left. and, most of the world would associate free speech with the left, not the right.
unfortunately, the current pmo has been so americanized that it's trying to flip the spectrum over, and just getting confused stares from the conservative party - and the result is that we have a competition for who can be more conservative, under terms that americans would need somebody to explain to them.
but, our current campaign finance laws at the federal level were brought in by stephen harper and the conservatives, not by jean chretien and the liberals. chretien brought in a reasonable limit of $5000, but he replaced the lost income with a per-vote subsidy - which was actually an increase in funding, given that the liberals essentially always won the popular vote. when harper showed up, he got rid of the per-vote subsidy and slashed contributions to $1000.
well, conservatives are supposed to care about finances, and they're supposed to be concerned about corruption. i know that sounds strange to an american, but that's what being a conservative is supposed to be all about! it's liberals that are supposed to care a little less about strict budgeting, financial accountability and shady money - under the argument that restricting corruption just hurts the economy (which i agree with, mostly).
so, as a canadian, there's nothing confusing to me about this.
what i've always found so confusing is the american pseudo-left's pre-occupation with finance, as it's always made them sound very right-wing, to me. but, if you really study the history, it's a relic of the realignment process, and the fact that the democrats are, historically, the conservative party. american progressivism sounds strangely conservative a lot of the time because it is actually a historical conservative movement at it's core.