Hyderabad: The rapid rise of online political campaigning has made most political financing regulations obsolete, putting transparency and accountability at risk. Seven in 10 countries worldwide do not have any specific limits on line spending on election campaigns, with six out of 10 not having any restrictions on online political advertising at all.
Online platforms such as Facebook and Google have become prime virtual real estate for political advertising in recent years.
Online advertising:
Online political advertising — defined as paid digital communications that aim to influence voters’ or political office holders’ decisions on matters of public interest – has the potential to do even more. Such advertising has revolutionised the political process, opening up a world of opportunities for political actors to connect to voters. In turn, groups of constituents can use their own voices more effectively for civic participation. Online advertising can also help less conventional politicians with fewer resources, freeing them from reliance on wealthy donors.
Recent Example:
Digital ad spending in the last general election in the US – the country with the biggest market – had hit a record US$1 billion by February 2020. By a few weeks before the November 2020 elections, at least US$3 billion may have been spent on online ads. While online political advertising is more prominent in the US and Europe, it is quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with in other parts of the world too. However, this potential force for good has rendered traditional political finance regulations obsolete. Six out of 10 countries worldwide do not have any restrictions on online political advertising at all. Without regulation, online political advertising threatens financial transparency and accountability in the political process.
READ: Google halts political ads after attack on US Capitol
The legal definition of political advertising dated -from 1995 covers all media.
The main parameters to qualify as political advertising are:
• The communication takes place at some point of time after the announcement of and inclusive of Election Day itself.
• The content of the messaging is for or against a candidate, with or without the candidate’s consent.
• The message is transmitted in a manner that is usually considered to be paid, even in cases when it actually was not paid directly.
Examples of legal definitions of online political advertising
In Lithuania, the law defines political advertising as “information disseminated by a state politician, political party, its member, political campaign participant, on behalf and/or in the interest thereof, in any form and through any means, for payment or without return consideration, during the political campaign period or between political campaigns, where such information is intended to influence the motivation of voters when voting at elections or referendums, or where it is disseminated with the purpose of campaigning for a state politician, political party, its member or political campaign participant as well as their ideas, objectives or programme”.
New Zealand defines election advertisement as one that “may reasonably be regarded as encouraging or persuading voters” to vote or not vote for a candidate or party, or type of candidate or party referenced by views they do or do not hold.
READ: Twitter bans all political advertisements
Bolivia defines paid election ads as any message- – printed or aired – placed by political organisations with the purpose of promoting the vote.
Canadian law defines partisan and election advertising- “as ads that promote or oppose a party or a candidate”. Additionally, the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer understands that “election advertising includes advertising that takes a position on anything that is or may become an issue during a federal election campaign, from an item in a political party's platform to an issue at the electoral district level”.
As political campaigns shift online and the internet grows in importance as a decisive battleground, there is potential for:
• Increasing political participation
• Two-way political communication
• Cheaper communication
• Fundraising
On the other hand, online campaigning in politics presents challenges to the transparency and accountability of its financing and to the health of public deliberation. Four concrete challenges are:
• Misinformation and disinformation
• Cybersecurity and data protection
• Unchecked financing and microtargeting
Regulation:
The IDEA Political Finance Database shows that by 2018, only 25 out of 122 countries from all regions had their political finance laws set limits in spending (19 countries) or other restrictions (13 countries) on online media advertising, or both(seven countries).
READ: Facebook extends ban on political ads in US
70 Elections during the global pandemic have seen election management bodies or political finance oversight agencies rush to adjust their campaign regulations by introducing some rules about online advertising (such as Bolivia, Lithuania and Singapore). The capacity of governments to regulate the internet is limited.
According to 2019 data from the Varieties of Democracy Project, governments around the world have an average capacity to regulate only “some online content or some portions of the law” online political advertising is an important part of such content. Having a strong capacity to regulate online content is not a panacea in itself, as it could well lead to curtailing free speech on the internet.
To realise the full potential of online political advertising it is necessary to first address its transparency and accountability risks. This report identifies five areas for improvement.
Just two companies dominate the multi-billion dollar online political advertising market worldwide – Facebook, which holds around 80 per cent of the share in social media platforms, and Alphabet (Google, YouTube, etc.) which has roughly 90 per cent in search engines. Such concentration without regulation leaves these big tech companies with enormous power in their hands.
Too often, such companies allow a high degree of opacity in online political ads. The public does not know who places an ad, who pays for it, or who it is being shown to.
The ill-effects are starting to show. From misinformation and disinformation to cybersecurity risks and microtargeting – democracies around the world are feeling the effects of political content on digital platforms gone awry.
Disinformation - information that is deliberately false or misleading – can affect all parts of our society. Just last week, a fake YouTube channel created with the name Transparency International began paying to promote defamatory content about other anti-corruption organisations working on a case in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Platforms such as YouTube, which lack proper checks on these ads and who is behind them, not only undermine democracy and accountability but can facilitate attacks that threaten the work done by civil society organisations.
In order to realise the full potential of online potential advertising, we must first address the myriad transparency and accountability risks it poses.
Regulating online political advertising would be an important step towards removing undue influence from politics.
We recommend:
- Updating political financing regulations for the digital era, including an updated legal definition of political advertising.
- Ensuring authentic political messaging through identity verification processes, the use of official accounts by political actors and the removal of inauthentic online content.
- Holding online platforms and advertisers accountable for ad transparency.
- Raising the bar for financial reporting by political actors and online platforms.
- Restricting micro-targeting and enhancing standards for trading personal data.
