Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS
PROVIDUS
PROVIDUS is a leading public policy think-tank in Latvia, established in 2002.
ID: 841635228863-21
Lobbying Activity
Response to Transparency of political advertising
22 Feb 2021
Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS (think-tank based in Latvia) on Thursday, February 18, 2021, organized a workshop for Latvian political parties, experts and state institutions on European Commission's inception impact assessment regarding transparency of political advertising.
The main conclusions of the workshop:
1) The experience of online pre-election campaigns in Latvia indicate, that political advertising transparency is an issue that needs an European level regulation, especially regarding obligations for social networks and other online advertising platforms. The existing regulation at a national level has not been effective. The "soft law" approach with guidelines for social networks has also not been effective.
That is why we expect that the focus of the forthcoming European Commission's initiative would be on the proposed option No2. "targeted legislation to increase transparency and establish the same standard for economic operators across the Union engaged in the preparation, placement, dissemination and financing of political advertising within the internal market, and to support the oversight of this standard."
2) In order to increase transparency of political advertising:
2.1. it would be preferable to have a definition of political advertising that would be the same for all European Union member states. Arriving to this definition will be a challenge. In Latvia, for example, the political advertising is only regulated during specific pre-election "campaigning periods. Nevertheless, Latvia would also benefit from having at least a minimum transparency standard for advertisements of political nature placed in-between elections. The main challenge: the extent to which the definition of political advertising should also cover issue-based advertising, paid online invitations to discussions, conferences on sensitive topics, etc.
2.2. It is very much necessary that there is a requirement that political advertising is clearly marked as political advertising, especially during a few months before election day.
2.3. It would be preferable if there would be online databases of all political advertisements. The obligation to create such databases should be placed on online platforms rather than on political parties (especially not on small/regional parties) or third parties (citizens, NGOs, businesses).
3) We are more apprehensive about option No 3. envisioned by the European Commission: "legislation harmonizing specific conditions and criteria in the context of political advertising"
3.1. There is a need to set some framework behind certain techniques to amplify or target political advertising (some clarity is required relating the extent to which such techniques confirm with GDPR or principles of honest advertising), but with an understanding that 'targeting' has already become an indispensable part of any advertising campaign.
3.2. Common regulations relating to financing of political campaigns or bans on political advertising are currently hard to envision in a manner that could be harmonized across the EU.
3.3. Ensuring transparency of political advertising is a much more pressing issue compared to harmonization of political finance rules across the EU, that is why it might not be worthwhile to link these issues.
Centre for Public Policy is an organisation that has been monitoring campaign finance and political advertising transparency in Latvia since 2004. We have also helped to set up the framework for campaign finance and political advertising transparency currently in force in Latvia.
Read full responseResponse to Collective bargaining agreements for self-employed – scope of application EU competition rules
2 Feb 2021
On 28.01.2021 two Latvian organisations - Civic Alliance - Latvia ("umbrella" organisation of Latvian NGOs) and Centre for Public Policy PROVIDUS organised a meeting with Latvian stakeholders on collective bargaining agreements for self-employed. We fully agree that an open public consultation is needed as part of the impact assessment process - as intended by the European Commission. We ask European Commission to design both the impact assessment and the questionnaire for the public consultation in such a way that it includes questions on:
1) different interpretations in EU member states on scope of application of EU competition rules regarding self-employed. Would creating a trade union for self-employed (in a specific member state) be acceptable or does it already constitute a risk of breaking the competition rules? Are all kinds of collective bargaining prohibited? To what extent the self-employed in different member states are aware of such restrictions?
2) differentiation of types of self-employment based on whether it constitutes the only/largest source of income for a person or it is just a means of gaining some additional income. The impact assessment should explore to what extent this difference is relevant relating to access to collective bargaining and protection of self-employed persons.
3) whether there should be some differentiation between types of self-employment where performers are interchangeable (for example, delivery services or taxi drivers) and creative work where a unique value is created (for example, musicians, writers). Should this distinction matter in context of access to collective bargaining?
Read full response