[72] We make two points about the effect of the song and video. First, the Commission plainly thought the song, taken alone, had the effect required of an election advertisement, but it is not clear to us why the Commission formed that opinion. The lyrics denigrated Mr Key as uncaring and even venal, and they advised voters who cared about that not to vote for him, but the legislation requires more. As we see it, the lyrics did not encourage voters to vote by reference to views or positions adopted by Mr Key. Any such effect was surely too indirect to count. [73] Second, although the video did directly evoke political issues of the day, both it and the song clearly had entertainment value. That, presumably, is why the song was offered for sale on iTunes. That being so, voters can be expected to realise that the song and video may not aspire to factual accuracy, meaning that it is open to debate whether the song and video would have the effect of persuading voters to vote against the National Party. [74] We agree with Clifford J that the exclusion for personal political views published on the internet also applied to the song and video.65 The Commission was wrong, in our opinion, to assert that the song and video had to be the work of a single individual. What mattered, as explained at [60] above, was that the views expressed were personal in nature. As Clifford J pointed out, there was no question here of Messrs Watson and Jones hiding their identities; as artists they sought to be identified with their work and no other interest was sheltering behind them. In addition, it was common ground that the only relevant payment in respect of publication was the payment Mr Watson would receive each time someone purchased and downloaded the song on iTunes. The fact that the audience had to pay to acquire the song ought to have been a pointer to the Commission that it was not an advertisement. [75] We take a different view, however, of the editorial content exception. So far as this exception is concerned, the song and video are not one of the publications specified in s 3A(2)(c); as noted at [58] above, a publication must have a separate existence from the electoral advertisement in question and from the conduct of elections. If the exclusion is to apply, it must be done by characterising iTunes and 65 High Court judgment, above n 1, at [234]–[235].