Debate: Should rules on political advertising be relaxed?

 

No: Nigel Evans MP; Yes: Paul Staines

 

email

print

Also in this section:

• A new status quo

Andrew Hawkins

• Enough Said

• A view from the city

Mark Fox

Nigel Evans says... No

 

UK politics is in a worst state than anyone can remember. There is much that is rotten in the system of allowances and expenses, but it is symptomatic of a more deep-rooted rottenness which has created a cancer at the heart of our political life.

 

There is only one thing we could do that would make the whole system, teetering as it is, go over the top, and that is to relax the rules on advertising for political parties and candidates.

 

One corrupt aspect of the current system, which allows incumbents to advertise themselves to their electorate via glossy leaflets expounding their greatness as MPs, is the communications allowance of £10,000. MPs should not be allowed to use taxpayers' money to publicise their activities in this way. Their opponents can't.

 

To allow more money to be spent on buying attention-grabbing advertisements on TV and radio would further destroy the semblance of equal opportunity between parties of all sizes, views and persuasions.

 

We have no need for a crystal ball to work out what might happen. We need only look at the USA.

 

The mighty dollar is king when it comes to US elections. If you go down the route of federal funding, as McCain did, then you have a real problem when you face an opponent who can raise as much as he likes - and did - and then spends it against you.

 

Analysis of the recent US elections shows Obama raising more than $600m (£380m) while McCain was stuck on half that. This huge imbalance allowed Obama to wipe the floor with McCain in the advertising stakes.

 

Obama resorted to spending $6m (£3.5m) on one advert lasting half an hour which was aired by the big three stations, CBS, NBC and Fox. It was the most costly single piece of advertising in US history.

 

As one media analyst put it: "This is, in media terms, a rout. John McCain is in a shouting match against a guy with a megaphone."

 

In the month preceding the election, Obama spent more money, $100m (£63m), than McCain's Federal allowance of $84m ($52m).

 

So the huge advantage of one candidate being able to swamp swing states with constant one minute adverts was evident across the country. All of McCain's ads lasted 30 seconds.

 

The imbalance also allowed Obama to run ads in costly slots such as during NFL football matches, soap operas and prime time shows.

 

Obama's national ads were almost three times as numerous as McCain's, while a huge amount went into local markets.

 

The estimate of the total costs of ads in the US elections, including congressional battles, was an eye-watering $1bn.

 

Do we really want to import that huge imbalance into UK politics? Isn't it right that we allow freeto- air commercials in the form of party political broadcasts, which are open to all parties hitting the number-of- candidates criteria?

 

Each candidate locally has the opportunity to print their own leaflet and get it distributed free via the Royal Mail. This, in balance terms, is an amazing leg-up for smaller parties.

 

Political parties resort to stunts using bill boards. They will launch a new advert with the use of a truck with massive billboards on the back, and attract enormous coverage on the news. This is near-free advertising if anything ever was.

 

Ads in newspapers are used, but not over-used. Can you imagine what would happen if there was a real free for all? Forests would be chopped down to carry the extra ads that parties would feel it necessary to run.

 

It would turn an election into an auction, and that would damage democracy.

 

The internet and viral advertising will certainly force the parties to be more imaginative about how they get their message across. No doubt Facebook and other social networking sites are going to benefit.

 

We have to recognise that we are in a fast-moving game which is difficult to predict. Anyone who has seen the iPint application created by Carling to advertise its beer on the iphone, in which a virtual pint glass can be filled and emptied, will see what an immense impact clever viral advertising can have.

 

I believe we need to keep careful limits on expenditure, and maintain strict bans on the ability of political parties to buy their way, via TV and radio, into people's homes and minds. Traditional methods, along with innovative approaches, will be the key in the coming election or two.

 

Distorting the campaigns in favour of the rich and mighty would end up further corrupting the political systems which are being questioned so fiercely today.

 

The fire is sufficiently ferocious- it doesn't need stoking!

 

 

Nigel Evans is Conservative MP for Ribble Valley

Paul Staines says... Yes

 

My case for unrestricted political advertising is based on three elements: an ideological preference for freedom, the practical consideration that it would reengage the public, and that it would boost the competitiveness of the political market.

 

In a free society it seems axiomatic that we should be able to advertise freely. Advertising is, after all, a form of expression, and freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that defines an open society.

 

Back in the 60s, Marxist theorists attacked advertising as the means by which 'capital' conditioned 'the people' into accepting the capitalist organisation of society. They wanted advertising banned for that reason.

 

Visit any totalitarian or authoritarian society and you will notice the monopoly on political advertising enjoyed by those in power. China, Cuba and North Korea imprison those who advertise political alternatives. On the other hand, a healthy, noisy democracy allows competing political forces to express themselves freely. That free democracies are vibrant, with colourful political advertising, is something to be cherished as an essential component of an open society.

 

Any restriction on advertising is therefore a restriction on freedom of speech. There are hard cases: advertising aimed at children, advertising that is an affront to decency and similar issues about advertising in a cultural context, but political advertising is not a hard case. It is abundantly clear that restricting political advertising is dangerous in terms of human and civil rights.

 

In 2003 the European Court of Human rights held unanimously (TV Vest AS & Rogaland Pensjonistparti v Norway) that there had been a violation of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning a fine imposed on TV Vest for breaching Norway's prohibition on television broadcasting of political advertisements. It would be interesting to see a political group decide to test the UK's restriction on broadcast political advertising.

 

Given the dire financial state of ITV they might be wise to bring a case against the authorities themselves.

 

Nigel Evans would probably agree in the main with my ideological argument for political advertising. Nigel's argument is practical, not ideological. He thinks that if more money is spent on buying "attentiongrabbing advertisements on TV and radio it would further destroy the semblance of equal opportunity between parties of all sizes, views and persuasions." He cites the way things work in the USA to make his point. America has no restrictions on political advertising (though adverts must carry imprints and be accounted for financially) because the fathers of the constitution guaranteed freedom of the press and freedom of the paid-for press equally.

 

Is American democracy that bad? Two parties dominate, third parties flicker brightly occasionally, much the same as in Britain where we have not only advertising restrictions, but restrictions on spending by political parties in constituencies and during election cycles. Perhaps Nigel dislikes the cost of presidential elections; it didn't stop the son of an immigrant brought up by a single mother beating the son of an admiral who was the husband of a multi-millionaire. The reason for two-party domination of politics is structural, not because parties have to raise money for advertising. Around the world, wherever political advertising is freely permitted every possible permutation of party politics flourishes, except that of one-party rule.

 

Nigel worries about barriers to entry for new parties. Actually, in practice, advertising helps break down those barriers; it allows new parties to fundraise much more easily. In the most recent European election in Britain the new Jury Team and Libertas parties used political advertising on the internet to good effect. Nobody would have heard of them if they had not done so.

 

There is one reason why incumbent mainstream politicians fear unrestricted advertising: it will make them have to work harder, it will make their positions more open to competitive threats by disrupting the equilibrium of the existing political market place.

 

Single issue groups could make devastating interventions, insurgent new politicians could promote themselves and their ideas more easily. Television is still the best way to reach the passive consumer and the last thing incumbent politicians want is their hitherto passively shepherded electors stirred up. The current system of no-cost party political broadcasts based on the number of candidates standing is a form of blatant protectionism. New entrants are kept out of the political market place if they have not already got the numbers required to stand enough candidates to earn a broadcast.

 

Political advertising and the direct-to-voters technology of the internet used in the US presidential race energised the apathetic, brought more people into political activism, engaged more voters, brought in small donations from more people than ever before. That is a good thing. Hundreds of millions were raised from small donations, millions more became aware of the issues, millions of people campaigned. Political advertising engages voters, publicises rallies, solicits donations, and ultimately encourages supporters to join the campaigns. In an age of political apathy that is surely something politicians should welcome.

 

 

Paul Staines blogs as Guido Fawkes