Remember Ross Perrot, the diminutive Texan billionaire and independent candidate for US President? He relied on his vast personal wealth to buy enough television airtime to counter the dominance of the Republicans and Democrats. If justification were ever needed for a ban on political advertising to prevent wealthy individuals subverting the democratic process, it was Mr Perrot.

In October 2006, the High Court refused Animal Defenders International’s request to find that the ban on television advertising by bodies with political objectives breaches the right to free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights, despite the Communications Act 2003 being incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 and similar bans being overturned in other European countries.

The Court could find no logical reason to ban party political advertising but not ‘advocacy advertising’ or to limit the ban to election time. But the Court did give permission for ADI to appeal their decision direct to the House of Lords, by-passing the Court of Appeal.

The current ban focuses on who you are, not what you say. Big business can make environmental claims, for example, provided they comply with applicable advertising regulations, but lobby groups with ‘political’ objectives cannot advertise in broadcast media at all. This is a subversion of the democratic process in itself.

It’s time to bin the ban, and replace it with a mechanism that subjects all advertisers to the same standards. That’s the conclusion of the Advisory Group on Campaigning and the Voluntary Sector, and apparently Gordon Brown agrees!

Click here to request your copy of Issue 40 of Marketing Newsnotes