Bowman v United Kingdom
| Bowman v United Kingdom | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Human Rights |
| Citation(s) | [1998] ECHR 4, (1998) 26 EHRR 1 |
| Keywords | |
| Democracy, money | |
Bowman v United Kingdom [1998] ECHR 4 is a case in the
The principle in Bowman stands in contrast to the unlimited spending at elections that the
Facts
Judgment
The majority of fourteen out of twenty judges on the European Court of Human Rights held there was a violation of
42. Free elections and freedom of expression, particularly freedom of political debate, together form the bedrock of any democratic system. The two rights are interrelated and operate to reinforce each other: for example, as the court has observed in the past, freedom of expression is one of the ‘conditions’ necessary to ‘ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’. For this reason, it is particularly important in the period preceding an election that opinions and information of all kinds are permitted to circulate freely.
Consequences
In response to this judgment, the spending limit of £5 per individual was increased to £500 (for Parliamentary elections) in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.[2]
See also
- Campaign finance and Political finance
- UK corporate law
- Harper v. Canada (Attorney General)[2004] SCR 827
- (1976)
- Citizens United v FEC, US (2010)
- McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) [1]
- R (ProLife Alliance) v. BBC [2003] UKHL 23, BBC could refuse to broadcast graphic footage for an anti-abortion political party under the Broadcasting Act 1990s 6(1)(a)
- ECHR article 10. Also [2008] UKHL 15.
- Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Schs 9 and 10
- Companies Act 2006 ss 362-379
Notes
- ^ 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
- ISBN 978-1-137-28144-9.