# What role does big-private-money play in British & French elections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 1, 2012, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440 "2012-02-01T17:58:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/21 "2012-02-02T14:36:41Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Only the constitution (which there isn’t in Britain) can override a law. It most certainly does have one, albeit not contained in a single document. Under the UK’s principle of absolute parliamentary sovereignty, however, Parliament can easily change the constitution using the same process it introduces any other legislation. Other countries with more rigorously codified constitutions generally make it more difficult for their legislatures to change the constitution, and provide for a process of judicial review whereby the judiciary can strike down laws, or portions thereof, deemed to be incompatible with the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/22 "2012-02-02T14:49:52Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > It most certainly does have one, albeit not contained in a single document. Under the UK’s principle of absolute parliamentary sovereignty, however, Parliament can easily change the constitution using the same process it introduces any other legislation. Other countries with more rigorously codified constitutions generally make it more difficult for their legislatures to change the constitution, and provide for a process of judicial review whereby the judiciary can strike down laws, or portions thereof, deemed to be incompatible with the constitution. Thank you. Can we make this a sticky? [Read more](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom), **md2000**. Just because something isn’t a single written document (plus amendments) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/23 "2012-02-02T17:12:14Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > It most certainly does have one, albeit not contained in a single document. Under the UK’s principle of absolute parliamentary sovereignty, however, Parliament can easily change the constitution using the same process it introduces any other legislation. Other countries with more rigorously codified constitutions generally make it more difficult for their legislatures to change the constitution, and provide for a process of judicial review whereby the judiciary can strike down laws, or portions thereof, deemed to be incompatible with the constitution. A constitution that can be changed by the next law that comes along is not really a constitution. The Canadian and American constitutions have amendment processes that must be followed and are far more arduous than the majority of the day passing a law. The change to the constitution must be deliberate and take time and work and hopefully be well-discussed. A law that any majority can override with a law on a whim, removing freedom of speech or right to privacy, is not a real constitution. It’s even worse than in the USA, because in a parliamentary democracy the “executive” is the leader of the majority, unless the law is so repulsive that the monarch/governor general refuses to sign. So Britain may claim that it has a “constitution” but what it has is a collection or laws that the hysteria of the day can override. “Sovereignity of Paliament” is NOT a constitution as civilized countries understand the concept, particulalry if the most recent law overrides the older one. A consitution exists to protect the people from the monmentary insanity and excesses of the legislators; it has come into play many times in many countries to perform just that role. Mark Twain: “How many legs does a dog have, if we call the tail a leg?” Second Banana: “Five?” Mark Twain: “No, four. Just calling something a leg does not make it one.” ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/24 "2012-02-02T18:04:00Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > A constitution that can be changed by the next law that comes along is not really a constitution. No, it actually _is_ a constitution. All major political scholars concur on this point. Wikipedia’s definition: > [@](#): > > A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed.[1] These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is. When these principles are written down into a single collection or set of legal documents, those documents may be said to comprise a written constitution. > [@](#): > > The Canadian and American constitutions have amendment processes that must be followed and are far more arduous than the majority of the day passing a law. The change to the constitution must be deliberate and take time and work and hopefully be well-discussed. A law that any majority can override with a law on a whim, removing freedom of speech or right to privacy, is not a real constitution. It’s even worse than in the USA, because in a parliamentary democracy the “executive” is the leader of the majority, unless the law is so repulsive that the monarch/governor general refuses to sign. > > So Britain may claim that it has a “constitution” but what it has is a collection or laws that the hysteria of the day can override. “Sovereignity of Paliament” is NOT a constitution as civilized countries understand the concept, particulalry if the most recent law overrides the older one. A consitution exists to protect the people from the monmentary insanity and excesses of the legislators; it has come into play many times in many countries to perform just that role. And yet, despite your claims, the British constitution is one of the oldest and most gradual-changing around. If it could be changed as easily as you claim, then it certainly wouldn’t look as ‘old’ as it does. Our uncodified constitution has a benefit, in that changing one section of the system impacts the function of another section. All constitutional changes must consider their impact on the constitution as a whole. This in itself is a not inconsiderable check and balance on wreckless constitutional change. And one of the reasons I suspect current attempts to reform the House of Lords, for example, will fail. ---
**Author:** ![Ximenean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/aca169/32.png) [@Ximenean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ximenean)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/25 "2012-02-02T18:07:37Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > So Britain may claim that it has a “constitution” but what it has is a collection or laws that the hysteria of the day can override. “Sovereignity of Paliament” is NOT a constitution as civilized countries understand the concept, particulalry if the most recent law overrides the older one. A consitution exists to protect the people from the monmentary insanity and excesses of the legislators; it has come into play many times in many countries to perform just that role. I think it’s more subtle than. I think your argument understates the power of convention. Sure, much of the British constitution consists of laws that can, in theory, be overturned like any other law. But in practice, the laws that are considered constitutional are very difficult to change. To look at the same question from the other side, in countries with explicitly codified constitutions, it is not necessarily the case that the constitution prevents abuse of power by the government. There are many cases of countries that look like great places to live, if you judge them solely on their constitution, while in fact being despotic hellholes in which the rule of law is routinely ignored. So it is not enough to just have a good constitution. You must also have the strongly established convention that the constitution is supreme. The US has that, in spades. The UK also has it, despite having a relatively vaguely defined constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/26 "2012-02-02T19:11:57Z")
Our friend **md2000** my be surprised to know that Canada’s constitution is not a single written document; but rather, consists of constitutional documents, laws, conventions, and traditions. I haven’t got the time right now to go into the details, but a brief search found [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=121994), in which **Muffin** gives an excellent summary of the situation (at post 35). From that post: > [@Muffin](#): > > … Let’s just say that our Constitution is interesting and unique, and is by no means fixed in stone. > > Not only do we have a stack of Constitutional Amendments, but we have a whole trunk full of Constitutional Documents which either may or may not have the force of law (depending on whether or not they were made before 1867, or if pre-Confederation, whether they were included by reference), going right the way back to 1670, when a company was given the right to make and enforce laws across much of what is Canada today. > > We even have many traditional ways of doing things that are not written down anywhere in any laws. For example, by unwritten convention we have a Prime Minister whose office was only relatively recently was mentioned in a Constitutional Document (in 1982), and even then was only mentioned in passing without speaking of what the office is, what it does, and where it finds its authority. > > In short, our Constitution is not just one document, and is not just a set of documents, but rather is it a combination of written documents and unwritten conventions. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/27 "2012-02-02T19:25:41Z")
Yah. I tried to read the constitution once. It’s basically “in Clause X of the BNA act, substitute this paragraph for this…”. There’s something to be said for the simplicity of “We, the people…” even if it does attract the grammar nazis with things like “…more perfect…” However, I don’t expect the fine people of the British parliament to revoke the right to free speech in one swell foop; instead, rights will disappear one bit at a time until you have a situation where, for example, the wonderful world of ASBO’s: > [@](#): > > Less common ASBOs > > Less common and more conventional uses of ASBOs, as listed by a report to the Home Office to illustrate the difficulties with ASBOs, include: > Two teenage boys from east Manchester forbidden to wear one golf glove, as it was a symbol of membership of a particular gang.[8] > A 13-year-old forbidden to use the word “grass” as a term of abuse in order to threaten people.[8] > A 15-year-old forbidden to play football in his street.[8] > An 18-year-old male was banned from congregating with more than three youths, and subsequently arrested when he entered a very popular youth club. The subject scheduled for that day in the club was how to deal with anti-social behaviour.[8] > The first farmer to be given an ASBO was instructed to keep his geese and pigs from damaging his neighbour’s property.[8] > The oldest recipient of an ASBO, an 87-year-old man who was sarcastic to his neighbours.[8] > A two-year-old boy was accused of kicking a football at windows over a fence 7 feet (2 m) high and verbally abusing residents when asked to stop. This, however, turned out to be a police error.[38] > A woman was forbidden to make excessive noise during sex anywhere in England. IANAL - How many of these restrictions would be permitted without a conviction or a big long court case under the constitution of the USA? Sarcasm and noisy sex I’m sure are covered under Freedom of Speech, which does not truly exist in Britain or Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/28 "2012-02-02T20:07:23Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > IANAL - How many of these restrictions would be permitted without a conviction or a big long court case under the constitution of the USA? Sarcasm and noisy sex I’m sure are covered under Freedom of Speech, which does not truly exist in Britain or Canada. Depending on how much noise it was, it would have fallen under local noise regulations, in Spain. I think those exist in the US too… ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/29 "2012-02-02T20:12:07Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Yah. I tried to read the constitution once. It’s basically “in Clause X of the BNA act, substitute this paragraph for this…”. There’s something to be said for the simplicity of “We, the people…” even if it does attract the grammar nazis with things like “…more perfect…” > > However, I don’t expect the fine people of the British parliament to revoke the right to free speech in one swell foop; instead, rights will disappear one bit at a time until you have a situation where, for example, the wonderful world of ASBO’s: > > IANAL - How many of these restrictions would be permitted without a conviction or a big long court case under the constitution of the USA? Sarcasm and noisy sex I’m sure are covered under Freedom of Speech, which does not truly exist in Britain or Canada. To be honest, the absence or presence of an uncodified or codified constitution is irrelevant to your point. If we had a written constitution forbidding any recourse to the courts for matters of a constitutional nature, it would be much the same as now. Codified constitutions don’t prevent stupid or oppressive laws coming about. Moreover the general political culture here is that the courts and Parliament keep off each other’s turf; we have issues enough with the House of Lords. We’d rather not have another group of unelected people telling our elected representatives what to do. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/30 "2012-02-02T20:26:20Z")
For us Yanks: ASBO= Anti-Social Behaviour Order: roughly the equivalent of a standing injunction against, well nearly anything that someone took umbrage at. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/31 "2012-02-02T20:31:54Z")
Under American law, you can generally get injunctions upon showing that some kind of legal right is being violated. But injunctions aren’t usually available when monetary compensation makes you whole. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/32 "2012-02-02T22:06:46Z")
> [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > To be honest, the absence or presence of an uncodified or codified constitution is irrelevant to your point. If we had a written constitution forbidding any recourse to the courts for matters of a constitutional nature, it would be much the same as now. but pasing such a law in a constitutional state would require a constitutional amendment and a huge amount of agreement. In the UK, it only requires a bloody-minded PM and 50% of MPs. > [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > Codified constitutions don’t prevent stupid or oppressive laws coming about. ASBOs. QED. Written constitutions do, if the law is in violation of consitutional guarantees. It may take a bit of legal work, but the threat and past experience helps moderate the extent to which, say, Congress may even try. > [@Malden\_Capell](#): > > We’d rather not have another group of unelected people telling our elected representatives what to do. Isn’t that pretty much what ASBO’s did to the general population? Any way, we’re straying from the OP. The short answer is, companies outside the USA only need to bribe/lobby/finance the party brass, the cabinet leaders, and the parliamentary committee (if that), rather than 3/4 of the legislature. We come cheap. The party parliamentary system is designed for rubber stamps rather than a couple of hundred loose cannons. ---
**Author:** ![Malden\_Capell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/malden_capell/32/5274_2.png) [@Malden\_Capell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malden_Capell)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/33 "2012-02-02T22:26:40Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > but pasing such a law in a constitutional state would require a constitutional amendment and a huge amount of agreement. In the UK, it only requires a bloody-minded PM and 50% of MPs. Except that’s clearly not what actually happens. Constitutional changes are treated differently in parliamentary procedure, and if governments want the changes to _stick_, they need more than just their own party in favour of them. There are also plenty of other mechanisms available that can persuade an overbearing government to lay off, such as declining to consider government business within a reasonable amount of time. It’s quite effective - otherwise the UK would have become a police state long ago, right? > [@](#): > > ASBOs. QED. Written constitutions do, if the law is in violation of consitutional guarantees. It may take a bit of legal work, but the threat and past experience helps moderate the extent to which, say, Congress may even try. Uh…no. ASBOs have actually been considered fairly weak in terms of what they intended to do and what actually arose. How about looking at, say, the 90-day detention without trial that the government tried to pass a few years back? Parliament killed that dead. After all, wasn’t there a bill a few months back with gives the US Army the power to detain US citizens without trial? IIRC… > [@](#): > > Isn’t that pretty much what ASBO’s did to the general population? No. > [@](#): > > Any way, we’re straying from the OP. The short answer is, companies outside the USA only need to bribe/lobby/finance the party brass, the cabinet leaders, and the parliamentary committee (if that), rather than 3/4 of the legislature. We come cheap. The party parliamentary system is designed for rubber stamps rather than a couple of hundred loose cannons. And yet funnily enough the UK system is less at the mercy of special interests than the US system. I put this down to the parliamentary system compared to the US presidential system, myself. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/34 "2012-02-02T23:31:46Z")
**Baron Greenback** has already alluded to this point, but I think it deserves more emphasis. Apart from people running for office at the very local (basically the small city) level, American political campaigns of any significance are waged mostly through television advertizing, which is very expensive to buy. This is largely (together with the sheer size of the country) what makes American politics so expensive, and thus so heavily reliant on donated money. In Britain, purchase of political ads on TV is not allowed. The major parties - indeed, any party which can show evidence of a certain level of popular support - are given a certain amount of TV time to make their case, and they have to pay for the production of the Party Political Broadcasts that are put on, but they do not have to pay for the air time. It is given free, by law. This means that campaigning in Britain is a lot cheaper than in the USA, and thus the influence of money on politics, though it certainly exists, is much less. I am inclined to think that the American style of political campaigning via paid TV ads is the source of a lot of the country’s political problems, but, of course, this is not something you will hear discussed on the American broadcast media. They make a huge killing at election time. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2012, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/35 "2012-02-02T23:49:05Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > Any way, we’re straying from the OP. The short answer is, companies outside the USA only need to bribe/lobby/finance the party brass, the cabinet leaders, and the parliamentary committee (if that), rather than 3/4 of the legislature. We come cheap. The party parliamentary system is designed for rubber stamps rather than a couple of hundred loose cannons. You say they “only need to,” but **do** they? ---
**Author:** ![tetranz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@tetranz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tetranz)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/36 "2012-02-03T00:52:35Z")
> [@APB](#): > > There are no limits on donations. What there is are very strict limits on campaign spending. But what would happen if someone else decides to spend huge amounts of money on TV and newspaper ads saying “the country should do this!” which is clearly in line with a party or candidate but they end their ads with “we do not support any candidate”? As I understand it, that’s basically what the super pacs do in the US. Are there laws against that in the UK? If so then how is it enforced? Maybe the TV stations and newspapers simply wouldn’t accept the ads. ---
**Author:** ![PaulParkhead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@PaulParkhead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaulParkhead)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/37 "2012-02-03T01:03:09Z")
> [@tetranz](#): > > But what would happen if someone else decides to spend huge amounts of money on TV and newspaper ads saying “the country should do this!” which is clearly in line with a party or candidate but they end their ads with “we do not support any candidate”? As I understand it, that’s basically what the super pacs do in the US. > > Are there laws against that in the UK? If so then how is it enforced? Maybe the TV stations and newspapers simply wouldn’t accept the ads. TV stations are not allowed to show political ads, period. Doesn’t matter who commissioned or paid for it, it’s not allowed. Newspapers can accept political ads and fairly often do so. This includes party-specific ads during election campaigns. You also see party ads on billboards. ---
**Author:** ![Fiendish\_Astronaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiendish_astronaut/32/3295_2.png) [@Fiendish\_Astronaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiendish_Astronaut)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/38 "2012-02-03T01:05:44Z")
Political advertising is banned on British TV and radio (and I think Ofcom also regulates the internet in the same way as much as is realistically possible). That doesn’t just mean promoting political parties but also promoting political issues. Advertising is for selling products or promoting brands. This sums it up quite quickly I think: [http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/Hot-Topics/Political-ads.aspx](http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/Hot-Topics/Political-ads.aspx) EDIT: Gah! Beaten to it by Paul. ---
**Author:** ![Spoons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spoons/32/3141_2.png) [@Spoons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoons)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/39 "2012-02-03T01:30:50Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > IANAL - How many of these [ABSO] restrictions would be permitted without a conviction or a big long court case under the constitution of the USA? Sarcasm and noisy sex I’m sure are covered under Freedom of Speech, which does not truly exist in Britain or Canada. Subject, of course, to the specific facts of each matter, I’m sure that court orders from an American court could issue in many, if not most, of your examples. Remember, constitutional freedoms do not extend to interactions between citizens or private organizations, even in the US–they only protect citizens from their own government. So, an American’s sarcasm towards his neighbour (sorry, _neighbor_ in the US) can be the subject of a restraining/no-contact order, noisy sex can be the subject of government action (as with a noisy party, police, alerted to the problem, might visit to ask the couple to keep it down), a farmer could be ordered to keep his livestock off another’s property, and so on. IMHO, it seems to me that getting a court order for some of your examples is a little excessive; but the point is that such things can happen. Consider, for example, what often happens in domestic violence matters: a court issues a restraining order that not only keeps the parties apart (is freedom of association violated?), but can also keep the parties from even speaking to each other over the telephone. Is this a restriction on either party’s freedom of speech? Of course not; they are private individuals. Somewhat similarly, your freedom of speech is not curtailed when the newspaper doesn’t print your letter-to-the-editor–the newspaper is a private business and is not government-controlled. Of course, if your letter is printed, and states that the government sucks, then your constitutional freedom kicks in and you are protected from government reprisals or adverse actions because of what you said in your letter. ---
**Author:** ![tetranz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@tetranz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tetranz)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2012, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440/40 "2012-02-03T03:04:22Z")
> [@Fiendish\_Astronaut](#): > > Political advertising is banned on British TV and radio (and I think Ofcom also regulates the internet in the same way as much as is realistically possible). That doesn’t just mean promoting political parties but also promoting political issues. Wow, that’s a surprise. I didn’t know that. I’m a New Zealander living in the US and somehow I assumed, I guess for no logical reason, that our laws around politics etc in NZ would be similar to the UK. We have political ads on radio and TV in NZ and, other than the obvious difference in scale and duration, I don’t remember it being that much different to here in the US. There are strict spending limitations but I’m not sure how they’d handle it if an “independent” organization decided to push a political issue while pretending not to support a particular candidate or party. How about campaigning on election in the UK? That’s not allowed in NZ. All billboards etc need to be down by midnight before election day. Cars can fly colored ribbons but not have a sign with a candidate or party name. They considered regulating the internet on election day but decided that was impractical with Google cache etc. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-role-does-big-private-money-play-in-british-french-elections/611440.md?page=3)