The central function of the regulatory or supervisory body, once the campaign process has begun, is to ensure that the regulations or agreements put into place in an earlier period are complied with: that direct access time is distributed according to the rules, that voter education is impartial and meets the required standards, and that parties and media are adhering to agreed practice on hate speech.
Very importantly, the regulatory body should also be on the lookout for any interference with the freedom of the media to cover the campaign freely, whether from the state or from any political party. It will need to convey information about any such interference to the appropriate governmental authorities, as well as issuing its own clear public condemnation. This is one of the most concrete ways in which the regulator acts as a facilitator and guardian of media freedom in the electoral process.
It is also during this process that the complaints procedure comes into play. It is vital that this mechanism is able to receive, investigate, hear, and resolve complaints quickly during an election period - long-term, post-election solutions will satisfy no one.
However, in order to address complaints - as well as all these other functions - the regulatory body will need to have the capacity to monitor media coverage of the election. This will enable it not only to respond swiftly to complaints with reference to its own observation of media coverage, but also to initiate its own action if parties or the media have breached laws or regulations.
In many cases, regulatory bodies simply are not able to carry out this monitoring function, which puts them at an immense disadvantage when it comes to evaluating complaints - but also makes them unable to initiate action if, for example, direct access slots are not being broadcast as they should. A monitoring unit undoubtedly costs money - mainly in wages, since it is labour-intensive. The budget for a fairly substantial nongovernmental media monitoring project lasting three months in an African country in late 2000 was about US$250,000.
One common alternative in well-established democracies is for the media to be required to submit a copy of all relevant material to the regulatory body. Assuming such an agreement is complied with, this meets the need to have material at hand to evaluate complaints, but it does not allow the body to initiate its own actions, unless it has staff available to evaluate all material submitted.
A third alternative, which is becoming increasingly common, is for the regulatory body to work in conjunction with non-governmental media monitors. Such a collaboration can be loose and informal or the subject of a detailed contract. In South Africa in 1999, for example, the non-governmental Media Monitoring Project was formally contracted to work with the Independent Broadcasting Authority. More often, the non-governmental monitors will submit their findings to the regulatory body, which will then decide whether further action is required.
