This section contains case studies of some issues-based campaigns.

The case studies give detailed assessments of the purpose test for each campaign, and whether or not it was made available to the public.

These assessments may provide a model for how to assess your own campaign activities.

For more details on what is regulated spending, please read our non-party campaigner guidance.

A charity had been campaigning on aid for some years, with the aim that all political parties would commit to upholding the policy of spending 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid. Shortly after the election was called, Theresa May announced that the Conservative Party would maintain their commitment to the policy. 

The charity put out a line welcoming the Prime Minister’s announcement, which went out on social media channels and via press release.

The charity then wrote to their supporters, asking them to add their name to a letter that the charity then sent to all candidates standing in those supporters’ constituencies. The letter called for the candidates to ensure that support for aid appeared in their party manifesto. To save resources, the charity focused on what it decided were priority constituencies: about a fifth of all constituencies, selected according to the incumbent's influence on the party manifesto and to achieve a balance of parties and regions of the UK.

Made available to the public:

The public test is met as the line is going out on social media.

Purpose test:

Call to action to voters

There is no call to action for voters. There is an implicit call to action aimed at other political parties, hoping to influence them to commit to the policy as well. 

Tone

Theresa May has made the announcement in her capacity as leader of the Conservative Party. The message is positive about the announcement, and thereby implicitly positive about the Conservative Party.  

Context and timing

The charity has campaigned on the issue for several years. The announcement is in the context of the election and her party’s manifesto, so there is a link to the election and voting. At this time the Conservatives are the only party to have committed to the policy, although later on other parties will announce commitment and the charity will put out similar positive lines.

How a reasonable person would see the activity

A reasonable person would think that the intention of the activity was to influence political parties to adopt the policy. They would not think that there was an intention to influence voters to vote for the Conservative Party, since the charity would put out similar lines if any party announced its commitment to the policy, as they in fact did later on.

The activity cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for a political party, so the purpose test is not met. Spending on the activity is not regulated.  

Made available to the public:

The letter not made available to the public because it is only going to the charity’s supporters, who have signed up to a mailing list and agreed to receive the material. The spending on the letter action is therefore not regulated.

For completeness, we will also assess it against the purpose test.

Purpose test:

Call to action to voters

There is an explicit call to action to the voting public. However, they are not being called on to vote, they are being called on to lobby politicians. The activity is really aimed at candidates, MPs and ultimately political parties.

Tone

Both the email to supporters and the letter to candidates are positive about the policy. They are not positive or negative about parties or candidates.

Context and timing

The charity has campaigned on the issue for several years. Theresa May has committed the Conservatives to the policy. It is reasonable to expect that other larger parties may also add it to their manifestos, but there are some high-profile parties, in particular UKIP, who are known to be against it. While the issue of foreign aid and the 0.7% policy does therefore mark some sort of dividing line between parties, it is not closely enough linked in the public mind for campaigning on the policy to be reasonably regarded as campaigning against UKIP. 

How a reasonable person would see the activity

A reasonable person would think that the intention of the activity was to influence political parties and their manifestos. They would not see the campaign as intended to influence voters.

This activity cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for a political party or category of candidates, so the purpose test is not met. The spending on the activity is not regulated.

A group that campaigns on immigration and xenophobia delivered a high profile poster campaign, followed by a digital campaign that went on for a number of months. The campaign aimed to show immigrants as real people. 

Although the campaign had been originally planned to go live the previous year, it was delayed for various practical reasons, and the poster campaign was launched in the period before the 2015 UK Parliamentary general election. The costs of the poster and digital campaign in the regulated period were above the registration thresholds in each part of the UK.

Made available to the public:

The activity is available to the public since it uses billboards, websites and social media.

Purpose test:

Call to action to voters

There is no call to action of any kind, and in particular nothing related to voting behaviour.

Tone

The campaign is positive about immigrants. It suggests that we should be welcoming to immigrants as well as hinting at the view that immigrants are an economic and social good, and therefore the campaign can reasonably be regarded as in favour of immigration in general. It does not mention parties or candidates, or any particular policy.

Context and timing

The organisation has campaigned on the issue for some time. The campaign has been planned for a long time and was intended to be released much earlier, but now it is very close to the election. Immigration is a high profile issue in the election, and is associated in particular with UKIP. However UKIP usually focus explicitly on immigration from the EU, which the campaign does not. Neither of the two largest parties have a distinctive view on the issue, although the Conservative Party have a well-known target to reduce non-EU immigration to the ‘tens of thousands’. No particular policy is alluded to by the poster campaign. The broad issue of ‘immigration’ is not enough to link the campaign to UKIP or any other party or category of candidates. 

How a reasonable person would see the activity

A reasonable person would think that the intention of the activity was to change the general debate around immigrants, primarily in the media but also from politicians. Due to the proximity to the election and the subject matter, a reasonable person might consider the possibility that the posters were aimed at UKIP, and perhaps to a lesser degree the Conservative Party. However, given that the campaign has not been changed since it was originally designed to be launched in a period where there was no election, overall a reasonable person would not see the campaign as intended to influence voters.

This activity cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for a political party or category of candidates, so the purpose test is not met. The spending on the activity is not regulated, and the campaign group does not have to register. 

An environmental campaigner ran a series of campaigns on fracking during the regulated period for the 2015 UK Parliamentary general election.

The first campaign was an action day where a number of events took place across an area where fracking applications were under consideration by the council.

The second campaign aimed to get candidates to sign a pledge against fracking. The campaigner’s website had an interactive map of the UK, with each constituency showing which of its candidates had signed the pledge. There was also a running total for how many candidates from each party had signed the pledge. Other material promoted the website, asked candidates to sign the pledge, and asked voters to write to their candidates to ask them to sign.

Made available to the public:

The action days are public events.

Purpose test

Call to action to voters

People at the events are encouraged to sign a petition against the planning applications. They are not actively encouraged to vote in a particular way.

Tone

The tone of the events is very negative towards fracking. The focus is not on candidates or political parties.

Context and timing

The events are held during the regulated period, about a month before the election.

Fracking is a significant issue in these areas, primarily because there are live planning applications on fracking with the council at the time.

How a reasonable person would see the activity

A reasonable person would think that the events are intended to influence a council decision. They would not think that they are intended to influence voter choice.

The action day campaign cannot be reasonably regarded as intended to influence voters, and so it does not meet the purpose test.

Local or general campaigning:

Although the interactive map names specific candidates in specific constituencies, it is not a series of local campaigns. It is a general campaign.

This is because the interactive map covers many constituencies as a single campaign, and is clearly a campaign based on an issue, rather than actively promoting the named candidates.

Made available to the public:

The website and the associated promotional material are available to the public.

Purpose test:

Call to action to voters

The campaign does not have an explicit call to action. However, it is obviously intended to be election-related because it mentions candidates and parties. It can therefore reasonably regarded as intended to encourage voters to take into account their candidates’ position on fracking when casting their vote.

Tone

Since it is very clear what the campaigner’s view on fracking is, the campaign is implicitly positive towards candidates and parties who have signed the pledge and adopted an anti-fracking position in general.

Because candidates’ names appear on the interactive map in the relevant constituencies, a category of candidates has been clearly identified.

The website is also implicitly more positive about parties that have more candidates who have made the pledge. In particular, the Green Party has scored highly.

Context and timing

The campaign ran during the regulated period, in the six weeks leading up to the election. It was clearly aimed at the election.

How a reasonable person would see the activity

A reasonable person would think that the primary intention of the campaign is to influence candidates to sign the pledge, so that after the election there will be more MPs who have signed the pledge and will be more receptive to the campaigner’s policy aims. However, they could also reasonably think that it was intended to influence people’s voting choice in favour of candidates and parties who are anti-fracking.

The campaign can reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters, so the purpose test is met.

Since it is also available to the public, the costs associated with the interactive map, as well as the related material on the pledge campaign, are regulated and count towards the campaigner’s regulated spending total.

A trade union representing NHS workers had been campaigning about their members’ pay for some years alongside engaging with the structures that determine NHS pay. Their aim was to secure a pay rise for NHS staff, and for other improvements to NHS staff conditions.

In late 2022, when the proposed pay settlement was not deemed satisfactory to the union, the union declared a series of trade disputes and decided to hold ballots for industrial action about pay.

The union sought to increase turnout amongst union members using the slogan “Vote yes for the NHS”, both in member communications and more widely in union social media and campaign communications.

A number of the ballots for industrial action reached the appropriate threshold and union members working for the NHS in England took strike action. Throughout the period of industrial action, the union communicated with the wider public to explain the reasons for the strike, in media appearances, on its website and on social media, including criticising the government.

On strike days, union members stood on picket lines outside their workplaces and asked passers-by for support. The union asked members of the public to write to their MPs asking ministers to negotiate directly with the union on NHS pay.

For the purposes of this case study, we are supposing that a UK Parliamentary general election was called some months later. Because the regulated period extends back 365 days before polling day, this means that the ballot and the associated campaigns would have taken place in the retrospective regulated period.

Made available to the public:

The campaign is being made available to the public as the messaging is going out on social media in addition to direct communication with members.

Purpose test:

Call to action to voters

There is no call to action for voters. The call to action is to members of the union to vote yes to strike action in the industrial action ballot.

At the time of the ballot, there was no date for the next election for voters to be influenced in. However, even if there had been an election at the time, the call to action would still have been to members of the union to vote yes to strike action, and not to vote in any particular way in the election.

Tone

The future of the NHS is a matter of public debate, with all parties putting forward competing plans to improve the NHS. The union has strongly held views rooted in the experiences of their members, which they express clearly.

Context and timing

The union has campaigned about NHS pay and funding for decades, and it is the core job of the union to represent its members’ views on pay and conditions, which includes workload and the proper funding of NHS services. The industrial action ballot necessarily uses the language of voting, so in retrospect there could be a perceived link to the election and voting. However, the references to voting and ballots are clearly about strike action. And in any case, at the time of the ballot, there was no election scheduled.

How a reasonable person would see the activity

A reasonable person would consider that the intention of the activity was to influence members of the union to vote yes in the industrial action ballot. They would not think the intention of the activity was to influence voters to vote against the government party, as the material was clearly related to an industrial action ballot in the NHS.

Even if there had been an election at the time, a reasonable person would still have thought that the intention was to influence the outcome of the strike ballot, rather than voters in the election.

Taking all of these factors into account, the activity cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against a political party, so the purpose test is not met. Spending on the activity is therefore not regulated.

Made available to the public:

Material published on the union’s website and social feeds and activity outside workplaces will not just reach members and committed supporters, and so is being made available to the public.

Purpose test:

Call to action to the public

There is a call to action to the public. However, they are not being called on to vote, they are being called on to ‘show solidarity with striking workers and to lobby ministers in their capacity as the ultimate employers of NHS staff.’

Tone

The material published by the union is critical of the record of ministers as the employers of NHS staff.

Context and timing

The union has campaigned about NHS pay and funding for a significant amount of time. and it is the core job of this union to represent its members’ views on pay and conditions, which includes workload and the proper funding of NHS services. It is widely understood that this is the job of a union.

All parties have significant policies on the NHS so the issue of NHS pay is not closely enough linked in the public mind for campaigning on the policy to be reasonably regarded as campaigning against the governing party. Although the current ministers responsible for NHS pay are Conservative ministers, the union is campaigning against their policy in their capacity as the ultimate employers of NHS staff. The union would act in a similar way if an unacceptable pay offer were received from any government for NHS staff (and indeed has, in the past).

How a reasonable person would see the activity

A reasonable person would think that the intention of the activity was to win a pay rise from ministers in their capacity as the ultimate employers of NHS staff. They would not see the campaign as intended to influence voters.

Even if there had been an election at the time of the campaign, a reasonable person would have thought that the campaign was critical of ministers in their role as part of the government and NHS employers, rather than influencing voters not to vote for their political party.

Taking all these factors into account, this activity cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against a political party or category of candidates, so the purpose test is not met. The spending on the activity is not regulated.

Once the UK Parliamentary general election is announced, the union also runs separate campaigns about the election.

Some of the material of the election campaigns advocates people “vote for public services” and some explicitly advocates a vote for a political party. This activity is made available to the public and meets the purpose test. Because the spending is above the notification threshold, the union registers with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner.

However, none of the activity relating to the ballot for strike action was regulated as it did not meet the purpose test. It therefore does not count towards their spending limit or need to appear in their return.