The Dark Side of Political Advertising Bans: A Threat to Freedom of Expression

In an effort to avoid a US-style dominance of party funding through TV advertising, the UK ban on political advertising has been adopted, but in a strange twist, it has created a significant imbalance in debates and silenced citizen voices. The ban defines "political" to include any organisation whose main aim is to influence public opinion on a matter of controversy, a definition that could even include newspapers and some charities. As a result, campaigning organisations like the RSPCA, Amnesty International, and the Make Poverty History campaign have been forced to advertise in cinemas rather than on TV.

Key Takeaways:

• The Communications Act 2003 defines "political" organisations as those whose main aim is to influence public opinion on a matter of controversy, a definition that is broader than the one used by the Charities Commission.
• The ban on political advertising prevents all "political" organisations from advertising on TV or radio, including campaigning organisations like the RSPCA, Amnesty International, and the Make Poverty History campaign.
• The ban creates a significant imbalance in important debates, allowing commercial organisations like oil companies and zoos to advertise but silencing citizen voices.
• The ban also prevents "political" organisations from producing commercial advertisements, unfairly limiting their ability to fundraise and engage with the public.
• The Neill committee report recommended maintaining the ban on party political broadcasting, but its breadth and implications were not fully understood at the time.
• A peaceful animal rights campaign group, Animal Defenders International, has challenged the ban in court, with a full hearing expected early next year.
• The case has implications for advertising agencies, campaign groups, and lawyers interested in the intersection of government and human rights legislation.
• Switzerland's similar ban on political advertising was challenged in the European court of human rights and found to be a violation of freedom of expression.
• Tessa Jowell was unable to certify the UK ban as compatible with the European convention, echoing the court's sentiments that citizens need full information to participate properly in democracy.

Statistics:

• The Communications Act 2003 defines "political" organisations in Section 319.
• The Neill committee report (1998) recommended maintaining the ban on party political broadcasting.
• Animal Defenders International's "my mate's a primate" campaign was affected by the ban.
• The European court of human rights (2003) ruled that Switzerland's ban on political advertising was a violation of freedom of expression.
• Tessa Jowell (1999) was unable to certify the UK ban as compatible with the European convention.
• A full hearing on Animal Defenders International's challenge to the ban is expected early next year.

Sources:

• Tamsin Allen, "The Dark Side of Political Advertising Bans: A Threat to Freedom of Expression," Bindman & Partners (representing Animal Defenders International in the challenge)
• Communications Act 2003, Section 319
• Neill committee report (1998)
• European court of human rights, Animal Defenders International v Switzerland (2003)
• Tessa Jowell, "Certification of the Communications Act 2003," 1999