Electoral Commission on EFB

I’m busy today so am just lightly touching on this issue for now, but will return to it.  The Electoral Commission’s advice to the Select Committee is now public, and it is a real shame it was not taken up.

For now just have a look at this story about how the Electoral Commission has said it is “almost impossible” to interpret parts of the new Bill.  This is exactly why the Law Society and others have said it should have been scrapped or at the least have another round of public submissions.

As I said I will post later on who makes up the Electoral Commission, their strict neutrality, and their advice.  Plus also some surveys they have released on some key issues.

One of the biggest issues for the Commission is what exactly does Clause 80 do, in terms of exempting anything done by an MP in his or her capacity as an MP as an election expense.

Now I would suggest there is a simple litmus test.  The 2005 Labour Party pledge card.  It was ruled by both electoral agencies to be an election expense in 2005 because it very clearly sought to persuade or encourage votes for Labour.  It was as blatant electioneering as one could get without actually using the words “Vote Labour”.

So the question the Minister of Justice should answer for the Electoral Commission, is this: “Is it the intention of the Government that the pledge card would no longer be an election expense under the Electoral Finance Bill 2007”.

The Government must answer this question. Labour complained last time that they did not relaise their pledge card would be an election expense.  They attacked senior electoral officials for classifying it as so.  So it would be hypocritical not to answer the question, when those officials have specifically asked for the law to be clarified.

My solution is simple.  Abolish Clause 80.  It should not matter one iota who pays for a publication.  If a publication encourages or persuades people to support a party, then it should be an election expense for that party.