[67] The Commission should approach its work by asking itself the following questions: (a) does the public have an interest in knowing the identity of the person instigating a given publication; (b) is that person committing money or resources to campaigning; (c) is that person acting for another interest or merely expressing political views that are personal in nature; (d) would a reasonable person who is sensitive to the importance of free political speech think that in context the publication would have the effect of encouraging people to vote for or against parties or candidates by reference to views or positions adopted or not adopted; and (e) should the publication be characterised as editorial content of a periodical, radio or television programme or news media internet site in which it appears. Conclusions [68] We conclude by recognising that our analysis of the legislation differs from that of both parties and in some respects from that of Clifford J. We readily agree with him that the Commission’s interpretation of the legislation limits the right to free expression more than is necessary to achieve the legislative purpose and more than can be justified in a free and democratic society.63 However, we do not think that in addition to having the prescribed persuasive effect on voters an advertisement must have a commercial quality; the legislation addresses influence as well as money, extending to advertisements for which no payments have been made or expenses incurred. We agree with him that the Act is aimed at a class of persons — participants in the electoral process — but we consider it may well capture those 63 High Court judgment, above n 1, at [170].