First, count them

There was a peculiar juxtaposition of material on page 13 of the Irish Times of 3rd May 2007.

In one corner, the Standards in Public Office Commission advised that individuals or groups
who receive a donation in excess of €126.97, intending to campaign in the Dail general election are required to register as a “third partyâ€? with the Commission. The Commisison advised that to fail to do so was an offence. The commission emphasised that candidates and/or registered political parties were not covered by the advice.

What the Commission elided in its advertisement was the oddity of a person “campaigningâ€? as the Commission put it, in the general election, who, by definition is or was not, a candidate. The answer lies in the definition of “political purposesâ€? applied by the Commission to “campaigningâ€?.

Section 49 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001 defines “political purposesâ€? and reads:

‘

political purposes’ means any of the following purposes, namely –

(i) (I) to promote or oppose directly or indirectly, the interests of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas or a representative in the European Parliament, or

(II) to present, directly or indirectly, the policies or a particular policy of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party, or

(III) to present, directly or indirectly, the comments of a political party, a political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, a representative in the European Parliament or a third party with regard to the policy or policies of another political party, political group, a member of either House of the Oireachtas, representative in the European Parliament, third party or candidate at an election or referendum or otherwise, or

(IV) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority;

(ii) to promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the election of a candidate at a Dáil, Seanad or European election or to solicit votes for or against a candidate or to present the policies or a particular policy of a candidate or the views of a candidate on any matter connected with the election or the comments of a candidate with regard to the policy or policies of a political party or a political group or of another candidate at the election or otherwise;

(iii) otherwise to influence the outcome of the election or a referendum or campaign referred to in paragraph (i)(IV) of this definition;

Clearly, what the Commission was proposing to interfere in, was the free expression of opinion of citizens about candidates in the Dail general election.

Of course, it can say that it is mandated in law to do that and it must discharge its statutory obligations. Indeed, it may be right. But if it is, what of the other matter on that same page? It was flagged; “Banned Zimbabwean paper revived with Irish helpâ€?. The subject is covered in detail on Amnesty’s website HERE.

Clearly, to be consistent, the Commission should apply the law in full and should engage with the Irish Human rights campaigners and African journalists involved in the project to ensure that they register with the Commission as, by the Commission’s lights, they should do.

The basis for the apparent obligation to register with the Commission is that they appear to fall within Section 29 in that they … promote or oppose directly or indirectly, the interests of a political party; they present, directly … the policies or a particular policy of … a political group; they … present, directly or indirectly, the comments of a … a political group… or a third party with regard to the policy or policies of another … political group … at an election or referendum or otherwise, or… promote or oppose, directly or indirectly, the interests of a third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of … any public authority;

Robert Mugabe, clearly is a “third partyâ€? (not being a candidate in the Dail general election or a political party) and the Government of Zimbabwe is “ … any public authorityâ€?

This is a peculiar result. Consider the peculiar results flowing from the application of Section 29 to

“any person; …oppos[ing], directly or indirectly, the interests of a third party in connection with the conduct or management of any campaign conducted with a view to promoting or procuring a particular outcome in relation to a policy or policies or functions of the Government or any public authority;â€?

Do we know for certain what government policy is? Is the National Spatial Mananagment Plan really Government policy?

Or, what of the discovery that, without being published for a full eighteen months, it had, according to the Minister for Health and Children, been Government policy to have private hospitals built on public land, beside public hospitals?

In these circumstances there is nothing (except strict construction of the Act of 2001 as a criminal statute) to prevent an opponent of “Government policyâ€? (whatever that is) from breaching the Act of 2001 inadvertantly.

In the context of funding, consider that the High Court has struck down Section 3 of the Vagrancy (Ireland) Act 1847 as unconstitutional for criminalising begging and thereby infringing the right to freedom of expression and the right to communicate.

A beggar is, clearly, a “third partyâ€? under the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001. The “political purposeâ€? definition of the Act of 2001 includes : “… to present, directly or indirectly, the policies or a particular policy of … a third partyâ€?.

This is a reasonable description of the activities of a beggar.

Does the Commission expect beggars to register with the Standards in Public Office Commission, subject to collecting in excess of €126.97per annum?

And if the Commission does not, why not?

Is there not something fundamentally wrong with the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001?