Whether or not a country allows paid political advertising in broadcasting is likely to depend heavily on the traditions in its style and ownership of broadcasting and consequently the type of regulatory system that has evolved.

The issue of paid advertising for political parties or candidates in print media is generally uncontroversial. The practice worldwide is almost universally the same: advertising is permitted, subject only to other limitations such as campaign spending ceilings and sometimes restrictions on content.

However, the fact that many countries have followed a different course with regard to political advertising on radio and television can be put down to two factors:

• First, the cost of advertising on radio or, especially, television is usually much greater than in the print media.
• Second, broadcasters are either publicly owned or receive their share of the frequency spectrum from a public body.

Of course, neither of these factors in itself automatically leads to a prohibition on political advertising over the airwaves. But they do perhaps explain why the approach has been different.

Broadly speaking, countries with a long tradition of public ownership of broadcasting, such as France, the United Kingdom, and Denmark, have tended to be hostile to paid political advertising. Those with a stronger commercial broadcasting tradition - the United States represents the extreme - have tended to regard political advertising as natural. It is notable that the European country where commercial broadcasting is most dominant - Finland - should also be the one where unrestricted political advertising is permitted.

This is the rough tendency, but there are many exceptions. Canada, for example, which has a public broadcasting tradition similar to the British, has an approach to political advertising much closer to its southern neighbour. Nor is the issue necessarily to do with whether a public broadcaster accepts commercial advertising. The British Broadcasting Corporation has always maintained a strict prohibition on commercial advertising, but French public broadcasting has permitted it since the 1960s. Each maintains an equally strict embargo on political advertising.

A common pattern, of course, is for the public broadcaster to give free direct access slots according to predetermined criteria, while private broadcasters sell advertising slots to parties and candidates, often according to different criteria. This is the case, for example, in Germany, and was too in Italy immediately after the legalization of private commercial broadcasting.

The Argument For Paid Political Advertising

The argument in favour of paid political advertising is a freedom of speech argument and finds its apogee in the United States. There it is generally assumed that the First Amendment to the Constitution - prohibiting Congress from passing laws "abridging" free speech - protects paid advertising. Indeed, existing campaign contribution limits are often criticized as being in violation of the First Amendment. Other arguments in favour state that paid political advertising promotes a greater quantity and diversity of views and encourages public debate; while simultaneously not being a burden on the tax dollar.

Some research also indicates that political advertising can be educational, for example a study that looked at long-term change (1952 – 2000) in the public’s assessments of presidential candidates in the United States, which concluded that

While news may be more sensational and less substantive than in the past, campaign advertising has become more substantive in content and has grown tremendously in reach, frequency, and sophistication.

Indeed, this study argues that

…the public's steady level of information and increased focus on policy in presidential politics reflects the high level of policy content in paid ads, which have compensated for the shift of news coverage toward candidate character, scandal, and the horserace.[i]

The Argument Against Paid Political Advertising

The argument against paid political advertising is an equality argument: all parties or candidates should have equal or fair access to direct broadcasting regardless of the state of their campaign finance. Countries that favour an equal direct access system almost always have a prohibition on paid advertising. But so do many, such as the United Kingdom, which operate "equity" systems.

Some argue that paid advertising in fact increases the "dumbing down" of political debate. It is clear that paid commercials are generally much shorter in length than free direct access slots and generally tend to sell a candidate or party (or denigrate the opponent) rather than develop an argument. The difference in length is striking: the average length of paid advertising slots in Finland is 10-25 seconds and in the United States 30-60 seconds. In France, the United Kingdom, and Denmark the length of free slots ranges from five to 10 minutes.

In addition, paid political advertising “can even lead to a political dependence on campaign fundraising, undermining the integrity of the democratic system.” In other words, leaders skew their decisions and direct their statements toward those likely to generate donations, instead of acting in the best interests of their constituents.[ii]

What is striking, however, is the number of countries that have a mixture of paid and unpaid direct access broadcasting. Usually, the approach will be to allocate parties a basic share of free direct access time, which can then be topped up with paid advertising if the party chooses to do so and can afford it.