Comments on: Political Advertising: A Footnote

By: Lex Ferenda » Behind the BCI’s Trócaire decision

Lex Ferenda » Behind the BCI’s Trócaire decision — Wed, 30 May 2007 15:43:57 +0000

[...] precedents, etc). Given the recent BCC decision on the “Europe Direct” advertising (which I wrote about here) and the BCI decision on the Irish Autism Association campaign (which Eoin wrote about here), it is [...]

By: Daithí

Daithí — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 15:32:58 +0000

Thanks for the comment, TJ. I agree with you that the European Commission or indeed the State shouldn’t be acting in this way. I’ve had this debate/argument with EU staff on a number of occasions, and they normally draw a line between ‘general’ EU advocacy and ‘referendum-specific’ advocacy. To me, though, the problem is the spending, not the context.

Having said that, though, I think that McKenna et al are being a little misleading in their reaction to the BCC decision. For example, she is quoted in today’s Irish Times as follows (from the “In Brief” section:

Broadcasting Complaints Commission rulings against radio advertisements from the European Commission in Ireland have been welcomed as “a victory for equality and democracy” by former MEP Patricia McKenna of the Green Party, writes Deaglán de Bréadún.

In a series of rulings, the commission upheld submissions from Ms McKenna and leading Eurosceptic campaigner Anthony Coughlan, about the content of “Europe Direct” information advertisements organised by the European Commission Representation in Ireland.

The commission ruled that six of the nine ads “advocated and promoted EU membership and therefore, were directed towards a political end. Such advertising is prohibited.”

Ms McKenna said: “If the European Commission was allowed to do that, it could use huge amounts of its unlimited resources to influence voters in a future referendum on the EU constitution.”

As she well knows, the BCC does not have jurisdiction over Commission spending, and simply needs to shift its spending to non-broadcast in order to continue. If the problem is the spending of unlimited resources, then that should be sought. This BCC decision is about the definition of political advertising, not about the European Commission or ‘equality and democracy’.

PS: Eoin argues in a new post (here) that this case further highlights the problems with s 10(2) and the Murphy case.

By: cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Hat tips - Political Advertising; Privacy

cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Hat tips - Political Advertising; Privacy — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:37:15 +0000

[...] to test the reality of social unrest. Well, now there is. As Daithí (first hat tip) points out in Political Advertising: A Footnote, the Broadcasting Complaints Commission (the BCC) has upheld complaints by (former Green Party MEP [...]

By: TJ

TJ — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 11:31:00 +0000

While I’m no fan of s.10(3), I’m delighted with the use the complainants have made of it. It’s inherently objectionable that the
State (or EU) should take our money and spend it for the purpose of telling us how to think on contested matters of public policy - a point established in the context of referendums by Patricia McKenna. It’s all the more objectionable that the Commission appeared to consider itself above the restrictions on political speech which apply to Irish citizens and organisations.

Having said that, I’d still prefer to see s.10(3) repealed in its entirety. As I said on Eoin’s blog, it has the effect of protecting incumbents and insiders: http://www.cearta.ie/2007/03/trocaire-revise-ads-in-face-of-bci-ban#comment-1471