Supplementary provisions to the EU regulation on political advertising
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned supplementary provisions to the EU regulation on political advertising. M moved for approval of the proposal to strengthen trust in political information through increased transparency, where sponsors and target audience orientation shall be clearly visible 1. M emphasized that personal data may not be used for profiling without consent and that authorities shall exercise supervision 1. SD opposed the bill in its entirety as they argued that it entails over-implementation that threatens free freedom of opinion and creates legal uncertainty 2. SD proposed a graded scale of sanctions and argued that the regulation can silence smaller actors 2. C moved for approval of the committee's proposal and emphasized that the voter is put in focus 3. C highlighted that advertising agencies and platforms are responsible for labeling and making information about the advertisement available 3.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Susanne Nordström (M)
Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating supplementary provisions to the EU regulation on political advertising. I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.
Mr. Speaker! This is about something very fundamental: that people should be able to trust the political information they encounter. Today, we receive our messages via social media, advertisements, and digital platforms. All too often, it is difficult to know who is behind the messages.
The EU's new rules for political advertising have a clear goal, and that is transparency. Voters should not have to guess who is paying, who is running the campaign, or why they are receiving a specific advertisement at a specific time. All of this should be visible.
What is it then that lies behind why just I or you see a certain political advertisement on social media? There are several reasons for that. Often it is about target audience targeting. The advertiser has chosen certain criteria which the platform then matches against the data about me or about you. Basic information such as age, residence, and gender is often used to target political messages. It can be about everything from reaching first-time voters to reaching people in a certain municipality.
Platforms such as Facebook and Instagram build profiles based on what one likes, what one clicks on, what one follows and what one engages in. If one frequently engages in social issues such as defense or the environment, one can end up in a target group that different actors want to reach. If one has seen or clicked on political content previously, the algorithm interprets it as something that one is receptive to.
Therefore, political advertisements must now be clearly labeled, Mr. Speaker. The sponsor must be identified, the responsible actor must be identified, and it must be clearly stated how the advertisement is targeted. This is fundamental to strengthening trust in our democratic dialogue.
Mr. Speaker! One of the most important changes concerns how personal data is used. No one shall receive political advertising targeted at them without having said yes themselves – period. Sensitive personal data and information about minors may not be used at all. We are putting a stop to the profiling of people based on their most private circumstances. The regulation also sets requirements that platforms and actors take responsibility internally with routines, registers, and risk assessments. It shall not be possible to hide behind the technology.
The government's proposal is to introduce a Swedish supplement that ensures the EU rules function in practice here in Sweden. There shall be clear rules and clear responsibility without double regulation.
It is about four things. For the first, it is about clear supervision. IMY, the Swedish Authority for Privacy Protection, shall handle the issues concerning ad targeting and delivery, and the Media Authority shall handle the rest.
Secondly, the authorities shall be able to request information, carry out inspections, decide on orders and fines, and impose sanction fees when necessary.
For the third, the person who violates the rules on labeling, transparency or information requirements shall have to pay, but no one shall be punished twice for the same thing. Everyone shall be given the opportunity to express themselves.
For the fourth, there must be a legal process that is clear and legally secure. The Administrative Court in Stockholm shall have the primary responsibility, and decisions can be appealed. However, leave to appeal is required in higher instances.
Mr. Speaker! Let me be clear. Our constitutional laws on freedom of the press and freedom of expression stand firm and do not need to be supplemented. They always apply. This is an important step to protect our democracy against hidden campaigns and unclear senders. It is about strengthening people's ability to make informed decisions and about creating a more open and honest political conversation. If we truly want to safeguard democracy, we must ensure that transparency laws do not become tools for silence.
Martin Westmont (SD)
Mr. Speaker! I move for approval only to reservation number 1, but we naturally stand behind all our reservations.
Today we are discussing a bill that at first glance may appear to be a technical supplement to an EU regulation. But, Mr. Speaker, in reality, it concerns something much more fundamental: the conditions for democracy's free speech.
The Sweden Democrats' position is clear. We oppose the bill in its entirety, because we believe that the government has gone further than what is required according to the EU regulation. This is not a case of necessary legal adaptation. This is an example of over-implementation. There is a risk of stifling political freedom in our country in areas that should be governed by Swedish law and the Swedish constitution.
The Sweden Democrats' starting point is clear, namely that the EU shall not govern or regulate Swedish public opinion. But of course, there are exceptions to that rule, for example if it concerns curbing terrorism or other extremism that threatens Swedish security.
In the proposition, rules are proposed that mean political communication can become subject to interventions even if it is completely legal according to our Swedish constitution. The proposal opens up for sanction fees and fines without prior warning or request for rectification. The Sweden Democrats consider that this strikes against our constitutionally anchored right to engage in political opinion-forming. We therefore propose a graded sanction ladder instead: first warning, then rectification, and finally a sanction fee if necessary.
Mr. Speaker! It feels like it is not the first time we are discussing a regulation where the EU shifts its positions. Despite that, Mr. Speaker, it is only the Sweden Democrats who are reacting. Once again, it is the Sweden Democrats who stand alone and say no to the development we see.
We already see how these decisions affect reality. The regulatory framework has become so complicated and the requirements so difficult to fulfill that even the world's largest tech giants, whose platforms previously played a role in the democratic conversation, have chosen to completely cease political advertising in EU countries. We see actors would rather abstain than risk making a mistake. It is a legal uncertainty that holds back the free formation of opinion. This is not just a problem for parties and advertisers. It risks creating a democratic deficit at a time when it is more important than ever to stand up for our freedom of speech.
Mr. Speaker! We are to facilitate opinion-building and not hinder the democratic conversation, which this bill in its current form unfortunately does exactly. When established communication channels are shut down, many of the voices that depend on digital reach to reach out also fall silent.
political candidates with limited resources.
Those who already have media space benefit, while smaller actors are rendered invisible. The effect is that the political conversation is shifted from open, measurable platforms or that it falls silent entirely and moves to closed rooms, which can contribute to certain individuals becoming radicalized.
Mr. Speaker! The proposal we are debating today also opens up for Swedish rules to be automatically adapted to future EU decisions without a new review taking place in the Swedish Riksdag. This contradicts our constitutional order where it is precisely the Riksdag that enacts laws. Instead, the Sweden Democrats advocate that every change be reviewed openly and democratically in the Swedish Riksdag.
There are occasions when responsibility is not just about following regulations but about questioning them when they threaten the most fundamental aspects of our society. This is such an occasion, Mr. Speaker.
The most important thing we can do for Sweden is to say no to bureaucratic greed from the EU and, to the extent possible, only carry out a minimum implementation in cases where Sweden is bound by signed agreements.
What we can see is that the government's proposal apparently goes further than what the regulation requires. We therefore propose that the bill be rejected and that the government returns with a new proposal where a minimum implementation of the regulation is presented to the Riksdag.
Mr. Speaker! We in the Sweden Democrats are clear in our position. Let us safeguard a constructive debate where all voices are given opportunities to be heard. Democracy does not need more rules. It needs an open political conversation that is easily accessible to the citizens, for that is precisely one of the cornerstones of our democracy, Mr. Speaker.
Fredrik Lindstål (C)
Mr. Speaker! We are here to talk about the EU regulation on political advertising. I want to begin by, on behalf of the Center Party, moving for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.
The type of advertising we are talking about is, as previous representatives have said, political messages that are created, published, or disseminated in exchange for compensation. Political messages that are created and disseminated organically without compensation are therefore not covered by the new rules.
The message in political advertising must be linked to a political actor or be designed to influence the result of, for example, an election, a referendum, or a voting behavior, and this also applies to legislative or regulatory processes.
Mr. Speaker! Those who wish to influence through political advertising must now step into the light. I truly hope that we can help voters assess who is behind the advertisement. Who is the sender, what is the sender's agenda, and what does the advertisement want me, as the recipient, to do? Those who attempt to build their support by pumping money into anonymous troll factories will find it difficult.
We assess that the proposal presented by the committee is well-balanced. It clearly highlights how we should reason from a constitutional perspective to introduce the national regulations that every member state in the EU is required to implement.
We share the view that the hierarchy of norms shall prevail, that is to say that the constitution takes precedence over ordinary law, and that no amendment will need to be made to either the Freedom of the Press Act or the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression. Freedom of speech remains and is intact.
In the committee's consideration, great consideration has also been given to issues regarding personal privacy, which is, of course, very important and not least appreciated. But the authority that will be responsible for the matter, the Swedish Media Council, will be given a massive task in its exercise of authority.
An important question left to the member states is to regulate the supervision of compliance with the law, and then not least what happens if one does not do so. What sanctions should apply? What can a penalty payment look like? The effect of the new rules will need to be reviewed and shaped over time to have any effect.
We in the Center Party welcome that the voter is put in focus. The new rules will lead to the fact that political parties and candidates need information to ensure who is saying what and that the message is and remains authentic. At the same time, we are only scratching the surface of AI-generated false advertising. Just as much work will likely be placed on which messages are not authentic.
Advertising agencies, media houses and platforms that produce or publish political advertising will also be assigned a responsibility, as they are precisely responsible for collecting, preserving and making available relevant information about the advertising as well as labeling it in a certain way.
Actors providing political advertising services in the EU, for example advertising agencies, who are not established in the EU will now have an obligation to appoint a legal representative who shall be registered in each Member State where the service is offered.
In a global world where social platforms exist, this will become one of the Media Authority's biggest challenges. We look forward to following the upcoming work.
Mr. Speaker! To conclude where I began, we in the Center Party welcome that the voter is now being put in focus. We will vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.