Proposition 51K2996

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 juillet 1989 relative à la limitation et au contrôle des dépenses électorales engagées pour les élections des Chambre fédérales, ainsi qu'au financement et à la comptabilité ouverte des partis politiques et la loi du 27 juin 1921 sur les associations sans but lucratif, les associations internationales sans but lucratif et les fondations.

General information ¶

Author

Open Vld Herman De Croo

Submission date

March 15, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

election financing election expenses party financing election election campaign publicity

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 22, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Madame Galant, you are the rapporteur appointed yesterday by the commission to make us an oral report.

If all goes well, we will be able to vote on this around 16.30 am, in order to dismiss the Senate.

Madame Galant, we are listening to you.

Mr. Speaker, we are constantly being urged to work quickly and efficiently so that the Senate can do its job, but we learn that – after we have committed ourselves to work during the second week of the Easter holiday – the Senate continues to enjoy the holiday.

The problem is, Mr. Tante, that we are with the sperm period. There was a consensus among all colleagues, from the Chamber and the Senate, in the committee on the financing of the parties. We try not to have difficulties. That is why we are going to start with it now.

We agree with this proposal. But for the other drafts, I ask you to once again consider our proposal: start with a plenary session on Monday after the Easter holiday. You will be able to work as quickly, and then we will at least be in number.

I will make a list of everything that will be on the agenda for the second week of Easter vacation on Monday. I have 15 bills and a bill. That number says nothing, it is the content that counts.

You should not only take into account its content, also the presence of the members, and often also the presence of the ministers.

I have proposals that have not yet been voted on in the committee because the majority was not in number.

Let us go to the oral report of Ms. Galant.

This is a bill introduced by Mr. by Croo. The latter recalled the two guidelines of the bill:

- the urgent entry into force given the imminent beginning of the period of accounting for electoral expenses;

The need for regulation of the use of the Internet.

The speaker also announced the filing of technical amendments as well as an amendment that will exclude the obligations relating to the financial report imposed by the new ASBL Act (amendments 1 to 4).

A discussion followed, during which Mr. Philippe De Coene of sp.a-spirit noted that the bill carried in itself risks of perverse effects, following the ban on the commercial use of the internet. In fact, it is not planned to respond to the download by a third party, data from a candidate's personal site and their distribution.

Moreover, in the world of the Internet, the notion of "commercial" differs from that of the world of television. In fact, contrary to what is happening in the world of television advertising, in the Internet system, one does not pay for the distribution of images but for the “hosting”; that is, for the storage of digitized data. However, in some cases, this “hosting” may be free of charge.

In this context, what is understood in the notion of "commercial" is not clear. by Mr. Philippe De Coene proposed not to include this provision in the bill and submitted an amendment no. 6 in this regard.

by Mr. Herman De Croo admitted that it was not possible to predict all the possibilities related to the Internet. However, the Electoral Expenditure Control Committee has examined the problem. It considered that the provision proposed in Article 5 was the best possible guarantee in the current state of affairs.

by Mr. Dirk Van der Maelen expressed concerns about the contested provision and proposed its deletion.

By amendment No. 5, Mr. Jean-Claude Maene proposed to resume its entry into force.

by Mr. Dirk Claes fears improvisation in this area.

by Mr. Herman de Croo recalled that since the bill contains criminal provisions, it is not possible to provide for retroactivity and insisted on the urgency of the adoption of the bill.

by Mr. Hedwig De Koker, an expert, explained that the disputed provision originated in the uncertainty found in the practice concerning the Internet. After mature reflection, the Control Commission therefore considered it necessary to prohibit any commercial use of the Internet.

by Mr. Philippe De Coene reiterated his concern. He therefore proposed not to amend the law but to include a passage in the vade-mecum inviting candidates to the utmost caution in this regard.

by Mr. Dirk Van der Maelen also suggested changing the law only when the situation becomes clear.

by Mr. Hedwig De Koker considered that the draft text resembles the regulation on SMS messages. Any commercial use is prohibited.

by Mr. Dirk Van der Maelen recalled that the regulation on SMS messages was designed to protect the privacy of voters and that it can therefore not be considered similar to that provided by the bill. He therefore supports Amendment No. 6.

by Mr. Dirk Claes noted that unless the law is amended, the use of the Internet remains free.

After a suspension of the work, an amendment No. 7 is submitted, which replaces Article 5.

by Mr. Charles Michel clarified the scope of this amendment. It points out that websites that allow the distribution of video images are targeted by the possibility of using them. Websites of political parties are admitted in view of the amendment.

It is agreed that the dissemination of political messages on free websites is permitted, even if commercial links exist on those sites.

by Mr. Philippe De Coene confirmed that Amendment No. 7 aims to make a distinction between the use of paid and non-paid websites. The use of paid sites is prohibited. The use of non-paid sites is allowed provided that the production and "hosting" costs incurred by the parties and candidates are declared.

At the voting level, amendments 5 and 6 were withdrawn; all amendments and the bill were adopted unanimously.

If I can allow myself, Mr. Speaker, I will give the position of the Group Mr.

What can you refuse?

I now give the floor to Ms. Galant as a member of the group Mr. Galant.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. Why prohibit the dissemination of a banner on a commercial site, the one of a news daily, for example, and allow the dissemination of an advertising banner on the paper version of that newspaper?

In so far as a specific regulation seemed to have to impose itself for some, it is important to recall the contours of this regulation. We have tried to define a criterion that is as clear and practicable as possible.

The prohibition includes three elements:

It is forbidden to pay for posting an advertisement on a commercial website. The payment that is prohibited is, therefore, the one related to the placement online on a commercial site. It is not considered to be a payment the fact of producing an advertisement or a banner, for example by a web agency.

- Therefore, it is also not forbidden to disseminate any message whatsoever, whatever its form on a commercial site insofar as the dissemination, the online posting of this content, is free for the party or candidate. For example, the “Skyblogs”.

- It is also permitted to put online all desired information, whatever the form, on a site of a party or a candidate, for example on MR TV.

Mr. Speaker, I follow the viewpoint of Mrs. Galant. Fortunately, just before the beginning of the suspension period, we have a regulation for the use of the medium internet in political campaigns. This was absolutely necessary.

There was indeed the fear that we would have an arrangement that would not take into account the reality. The scheme we have now found is a scheme that, as the reporter very correctly put it, distinguishes between paying on the internet and non-paying on the internet. That is a good arrangement. This enables the parties and candidates to communicate via the Internet, to the extent that they are their own sites or third-party sites, where no payment is required.

Having said this – and I am addressing my colleagues from all political groups – I add with honour and conscience that after these elections the law on elections and the manner of conducting the campaign will need to be thoroughly revised.

I explain myself more closely. In the section of the law on electoral expenditure there are two major principles. We have a financial ceiling and therefore financial constraints. I think that is very right. At the same time, there is a limitation on how the campaign can be conducted. The SP-A group is in favour of ⁇ ining the financial ceiling. Moreover, we are even in favour of tightening that financial ceiling.

I explain why it is so. I made the calculation with the current electoral law, or at least with the current legislation. From next Saturday until June 10, all together, candidates and political parties – hold hold – can spend no less than 30 million euros to try to influence the voters or to change their minds. In the old Belgian franc, that is 1.2 billion.

On average, the parties spend only 70% of what they are allowed to spend. Nevertheless, if you apply the ratio of 70% to a maximum amount of approximately 30 million euros, that remains, of course, a huge amount.

Since the revenues of the political parties are generated mainly by government grants, we must be very careful and some sobriety is appropriate.

Furthermore, the law – which at the time had good intentions – imposes a number of restrictions on the way a campaign is conducted. We are quite masochistic. We allow the printing of folders. We allow the Flemish and Wallish streets and squares and the landscapes to be sufficient with patches. However, we do not allow advertising on television or in the cinema. Where we can reach people, we don’t want it, but where people find it enough because one folder after another falls into their bus, we allow it.

In fact, after the legislative elections of 10 June, whatever the constellation may be, I call for us to sit together with the necessary reason to update the way we campaign, as we do today with the Internet.

Why should we not advertise commercially? Why should we not hang posters of twenty square meters? The only condition is that the amount to be spent is settled even stricter than this is today.

I think we are therefore satisfied with the comments made by the rapporteur on behalf of her party. We allow modern campaign conduct, and yet we have an ethical principle, in particular a healthy limitation of electoral spending, knowing that today we can spend 1.2 billion unhindered. That is per day – because we are on Saturday at 79 days of the fatal date – more than 9 million on the Flemish side alone. I would say, one cannot even use it.

Mr. De Coene, it is not up to me to comment, but I have been in the control committee for eight years now and you have given me the confidence to make some changes. It is tapping and searching.

You correctly cited yesterday in the committee that the Internet instrumentarium has facets that we cannot even control or predict. I think you are right and that a total revision of this complicated legislation that has been established par à coups should be considered.

You are also right – I can afford this comment – that when the parties in that area substantially almost – you must forgive my expression – have become public parastatals in regards to their financing, we carry some responsibility where we stand on both sides, legislator, controller and consumer of the resources. I can come into your thought. That was what I wanted to tell you.

I would like to point out another regulation that is included in the law. On the one hand, we have limited the importance of the list vote, from the principle that we strive for greater equality for candidates on a list. On the other hand, we condition the election expenditure in terms of the proportion of the candidates according to the importance of this or that candidate. One can spend much more than the other. I would say, provide for a global ceiling per party. It is up to the parties to decide how they see it. What we are doing now is the inequality between the candidates registering in the law. That is a principle that is no longer consistent with the current views on issuing a list vote, nor with the notion of equality between candidates.

Mr. De Coene, I do not want to extend this further, but positive are the control of party financing, the auditors, the opinion of the Court of Auditors and the rigor of a meeting that is public. This control committee is public. The positive must also be said. In the usual happening of the parties, that is right, but I think there are ideas about which you rightly announce a number of potential discussions.

Mr. Minister Reynders, do not go too far. We are going to vote on these three proposals very soon and I would like to have a minister present at that time.