11

Political Advertising inInternational Comparison

CHRISTINA HOLTZ-BACHA AND LYNDA LEE KAID

3

Political advertising as understood here onlyappears in systems in which the distribu-

tion of political power is contested and deter-mined in elections and in which parties orcandidates compete with each other. Politicaladvertising, then, is a means through which par-ties and candidates present themselves to theelectorate, mostly through the mass media. Incontrast to the so-called free media, politicaladvertising is often referred to as paid media.Regular media coverage is called free because itallows candidates and parties to appear in themedia without having to pay for it. Because thiskind of coverage (e.g., the news) resides withinthe responsibility of the media and thereforeenjoys higher credibility than candidate-sponsored activities, political actors try first ofall to get into the free media. The downside offree coverage, however, is that the usual jour-nalistic selection and production criteria apply,and political actors cannot influence when, howlong, or how they are covered. Paid media, incontrast, allow candidates, parties, and some-times other interest groups to decide how theywant to present themselves to the voters.

Because the distinction between paid andfree media originated in the United States,where candidates are allowed to purchaseadvertising time on television, electoral adver-tising on television is classified as paid media.In many cases, other countries do not allowcandidates to purchase broadcasting time fortheir campaign messages. Therefore, instead ofclassifying campaign channels as either free orpaid media, a distinction of mediated versusnonmediated channels may be more accuratein an international context. This distinction isalso sometimes called controlled media anduncontrolled media, because candidates andparties can control their own advertising mes-sages but do not exercise complete controlover the output of media news messages. Inthis sense, political advertising is a controlled,nonmediated campaign channel, meaning thatresponsibility for the ads lies with the politicalactors, and they do not run the risk of theirmessages being altered by the media produc-tion process. Instead, political actors deter-mine how they are presented on television.Although this is the undoubted advantage of

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 3

political advertising, such communicationobviously has a persuasive intent that castsdoubts on its credibility. It is, therefore, a chal-lenge for campaign strategists to prevent andovercome the reactance effect that any persua-sive communication risks.

Although political actors strive for frequentand ample coverage in the free media, and par-ticularly on television, their interest in politicaladvertising seems clear. In addition to theuncertainty of what the media will do in theircampaign coverage, a commercialized mediasystem has made it difficult for politics to com-pete with more attractive media fare. Politicaladvertising thus gives candidates and partiesthe possibility to enhance their presence in themedia and determine its shape and contents.

In an earlier work on political advertising inWestern democratic systems, the editors definedtelevised political advertising as “moving imageprogramming that is designed to promote theinterests of a given party or individual” (Kaid& Holtz-Bacha, 1995, p. 2). Thus the defini-tion incorporates “any programming formatunder the control of the party or candidateand for which time is given or purchased”(p. 2). As media systems, channels, and formatsof communication have expanded and evolved,the central elements of this definition haveremained useful, but a more modernized andprofessionalized definition now suggests thatpolitical advertising should be viewed as “anycontrolled message communicated through anychannel designed to promote the political inter-ests of individuals, parties, groups, govern-ments, or other organizations.” This broaderconceptualization not only implies the con-trolled and promotional aspect of the messagebut acknowledges the different formats, chan-nels, and sponsors that may characterize suchcommunications in a given environment.

As political advertising developed in vari-ous media environments and as social changesled to a weakening influence of once-powerfulsocial characteristics and subsequent politicalpredispositions, election campaigns became

more important. Traditional social structureshave lost their meaning for the individual andno longer prescribe individual behavior in abinding way. Therefore, social variables thatplayed a central role in the classical modelsof electoral behavior no longer predict votingdecisions with the same probability that theyonce did. Instead, political behavior hasbecome unstable and fluctuating (see Holtz-Bacha, 2002). In fact, findings from severalWestern democracies have shown that partyties are weakening. Voter volatility, as expressedin increasing numbers of floating voters, andvoting abstention have been attributed to theso-called dealignment process (see Dalton,2002). This is a process that seems to be goingon in many countries but not at the same timeor with the same speed everywhere. With vot-ers thus being more unpredictable and theirelectoral decisions open to short-term influ-ences, election campaigns have gained newimportance. It is therefore not surprising thatpolitical leaders would be interested in the useof political communications such as politicaladvertising that provide for the controlled andunmediated conditions that best serve theircampaign interests.

Nevertheless, countries differ considerablyin the role television advertising plays in elec-toral campaigns.1 Although politicians are thelawmakers and could be expected to push forfavorable conditions for their advertising cam-paigns, restrictions apply to electoral advertis-ing in many countries. This seems to indicatethat additional variables are at work here,affecting the attitudes toward electoral adver-tising and the decisions about the respectiverules in a given country. Whether electoraladvertising is allowed and, if allowed, the wayit is further regulated are usually dependenton several systemic variables, including acountry’s political system, the electoral system,and the media system. Finally, how electoralmessages are actually designed is dependenton a country’s political culture, which, at thesame time, is reflected in political advertising.

4 HOLTZ-BACHA AND KAID

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 4

Any study of political communicationprocesses in an internationally comparativeperspective must therefore consider the differ-ences in political structures and processes, inpolitical culture, and in the organization of themedia (Hallin & Mancini, 2004; Swanson &Mancini, 1996). These variables and theirspecific interrelations provide for a distinctivenational background against which the regula-tions for political advertising, the role of tele-vision adverting in campaign strategies, andfindings about effects of political advertisinghave to be interpreted.

This volume only includes countries wherethe broadcasting of political advertising duringelection campaigns is allowed in one way orthe other. However, there are countries thatdo not have electoral advertising on television,either because it is prohibited or because polit-ical actors (parties, candidates) agree not touse this kind of advertising channel for theircampaigns. For instance, Switzerland is oneof the countries where political advertisingon television and radio is prohibited duringelection and referendum campaigns. Severalreasons are given for the ban on ads inSwitzerland. One is the assumption that par-ties would not have the financial means to payfor the production of the ads or to even pur-chase broadcasting time, because Swiss partiesdo not receive any state funding. However,advertising in newspapers plays a major role inSwiss elections, and protection of the printmedia and their revenue from advertising isanother reason given for the ban on televisionand radio broadcasting ads. The NorthernEuropean countries are also reluctant topermit electoral broadcasts on television.Although Finland does not impose any spend-ing or time limits on television ads, politicaladvertising in Sweden is only importedthrough channels that broadcast from outsidethe country. Denmark does not have an offi-cial ban on ads, but political actors haveagreed not to use them for their campaigning.As in Sweden, Norway also has traditionally

had a ban on political advertising, but newregulations are being developed that willrequire television stations to allot free timesegments for the parties.

South Africa, which is represented herewith a chapter, also is a remarkable case.Although television does play a role in elec-toral campaigns and has gained importanceover the last decade or so, electoral advertisingis restricted to radio. In a way, the reasonsgiven for this decision are similar to the argu-ments brought forward in Switzerland:Producing ads for television is expensive andwould overstretch the financial possibilities ofat least some parties. At the same time, tele-vision advertising is regarded as a powerfulform of persuasive communication and there-fore not to be placed in the hands of thosestriving for power.

As the country chapters of this book illus-trate, even where party or candidate spotsare allowed, there are many differences in therespective regulation. These differences start atthe level of terminology. In the United States,where candidates invest more than half oftheir campaign budget in television advertis-ing, the usual term is ads or spots. Electoralads as we know them in the United States arethus equated with commercial ads and, there-fore, “paid media.” They are also often associ-ated with time being purchased and electoralbroadcasts being very short. In other countries,particularly in those where broadcast timecannot be purchased, researchers tend toavoid the term ads. In the Western Europeancountries where public broadcasting has longdominated the market and the public servicephilosophy is still present, parties and candi-dates are mostly provided with free broad-casting time to be used for their advertising.Researchers from these countries often shrinkfrom calling these electoral messages ads andinstead use the term political electoral broad-casts (e.g., United Kingdom), polispots (Greece),or, in the English translation of the Italianterm, independently produced political messages

1. Political Advertising in International Comparison 5

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 5

(Italy). However, if a country allows electoraladvertising in both public service broadcastingand commercial broadcasting, as in Germany,it still remains an open question whether thebroadcasts in both systems are indeed thatmuch different. In fact, German parties tend touse the same ad for both broadcasting systemsand only shorten it for broadcasting on com-mercial television. In any case, the use of dif-ferent terms can be regarded as one indicatorof the diverging attitudes toward politicaladvertising across countries.

POLITICAL SYSTEM DIFFERENCES

The political system and the electoral systemgo hand in hand with the role of the parties. Inalmost all countries that are included here,parties play a dominant role on the politicalscene; the United States is the exception.Although there are other countries with a pres-idential system (Latin American countries, forinstance), it is in the United States that the can-didate orientation of the presidential systemhas led to a decline of parties. Elsewhere, theparties mostly remain in a dominant role. Thisis definitely the case for parliamentary sys-tems. In spite of trends toward personalizationand a focus on individual candidates, cam-paigning overwhelmingly lies in the hands ofparties. This is reflected in Table 1.1, whichshows, for a sample of 28 countries from dif-ferent parts of the world, that during parlia-mentary elections spots are sponsored byparties everywhere except the United States.

Sponsorship does not necessarily meanthat advertising time is paid time. In manycountries, advertising time on television is pro-vided free during elections. However, if this isthe case, time is allocated to parties and not toindividual candidates. Where parties do nothave to pay for advertising time in the media,they still have to pay for the production of thespots.

The strong role that parties play in mostpolitical systems is also indicated by the fact

that even in presidential elections, sponsorshipof television advertising does not lie with thecandidates. Table 1.1 also gives an overview ofsponsorship of spots during presidential elec-tions. Half (14) of the 28 countries listed havedirect elections of the president. Amongcountries that do not elect a president directly,several are monarchies, such as Spain, theNetherlands, and the United Kingdom, wherea queen or a king is the nominal head of state.In other countries, the president is not electedby the people directly but instead determinedby the parliament or another electoral com-mittee. Campaigning in the real sense of theword and thus electoral advertising can onlybe expected in those countries where the pres-ident is elected directly by the people. Inseveral cases, it is still the parties that areresponsible for the sponsorship of ads ontelevision. This is primarily the situation inEurope, where only the new democracies ofMiddle or Eastern Europe have adopted a sys-tem of candidate sponsorship for the spots inpresidential campaigns. Candidate sponsor-ship thus can also be regarded as an indicatorof the role the president plays in a political sys-tem: In most Western European countries,with France being the clearest exception, thepresident, though being nominally the head ofstate, is in fact in a secondary role compared tothe prime minister.

The electoral system of a country can beexpected to have a major impact on campaignstrategies and thus on the design of electoraladvertising (Roper, Holtz-Bacha, & Mazzoleni,2004). For example, strategies may varyaccording to the number and size of partiesrunning in a race. If elections usually lead toclear majorities and single-party governmentsor usually end up in coalitions of two or moreparties, such a system can also impinge oncampaign and advertising strategies becausecampaigners may, for example, refrain fromnegative advertising against future or formercoalition partners. Thresholds that parties mustovercome to be represented in the parliament

6 HOLTZ-BACHA AND KAID

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 6

7

Cou

ntry

Arg

enti

naA

ustr

alia

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Bra

zil

Bul

gari

aC

anad

aC

hile

Cze

ch R

epub

licE

ston

iaFi

nlan

dFr

ance

Ger

man

yG

reec

eIs

rael

Ital

yJa

pan

Lat

via

Lit

huan

iaM

exic

oN

ethe

rlan

dsPo

land

Port

ugal

Rus

sia

Sout

h K

orea

Spai

nU

nite

d K

ingd

omU

nite

d St

ates

(Dir

ect)

Pre

side

ntia

lE

lect

ions

Hel

d?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

Spon

sor

of A

ds

Part

ies

—b

Part

ies

— Part

ies

Part

ies

— Part

ies

— — Part

ies

Can

dida

tes

— — — — — — Can

dida

tes

Part

ies

— Can

dida

tes

Part

ies

Can

dida

tes

Can

dida

tes

— — Part

ies

+ca

ndid

ates

Par

liam

enta

ry E

lect

ion

Ad

Spon

sors

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

+ca

ndid

ates

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yC

andi

date

s +

part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Part

yPa

rty

Can

dida

tes

Ele

ctor

al S

yste

ma

Prop

orti

onal

rep

rese

ntat

ion

Maj

orit

y vo

tePr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nM

ajor

ity

vote

Bin

omin

al s

yste

mPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nM

ajor

ity

vote

Prop

orti

onal

rep

rese

ntat

ion

Prop

orti

onal

rep

rese

ntat

ion

Prop

orti

onal

rep

rese

ntat

ion

Maj

orit

y vo

teSe

gmen

ted

syst

emPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nSe

gmen

ted

syst

emSe

gmen

ted

syst

emPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nSe

gmen

ted

syst

emSe

gmen

ted

syst

emPr

opor

tion

al r

epre

sent

atio

nM

ajor

ity

vote

Maj

orit

y vo

te

Tab

le 1

.1Sp

onso

rshi

p of

Spo

ts a

nd E

lect

oral

Sys

tem

s

a. S

ourc

e of

ele

ctor

al s

yste

m: N

ohle

n (2

000)

.

b. T

he d

ash

is a

n in

dica

tion

tha

t th

ere

wer

e no

pre

side

ntia

l ele

ctio

ns, s

o th

ere

coul

d be

no

spon

sors

.

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 7

are another factor exerting an influence on thestrategies used in campaign advertising. Theelectoral system may also lay the ground forthe allocation method for free advertising time,which can be equal for all parties, proportionalaccording to the strength of a party in earlierelections, or based on other criteria.

Table 1.1 provides an overview of the elec-toral systems in the countries included in oursurvey. For the sake of clarity, the variety ofelectoral systems that exist across the worldhas been reduced here. As can be seen from thetable, the majority of countries follows somekind of proportional representation. However,it should be noted that there is much variationin proportional systems. Only some countriesapply a pure proportional system; most com-bine proportional representation with elementsof majority voting. Germany, for example, hasdeveloped its own special model of a personal-ized proportional system, which was adoptedby New Zealand in 1993 (Roper et al., 2004).Proportional systems also differ accordingto the formula (quota) used to distribute seatsamong parties. In segmented systems (alsocalled parallel systems), two electoral systemsare applied separately, with one group of can-didates elected according to majority vote andthe others according to a proportional system.Finally, Chile has a singular electoral systemthat more or less forces the parties to form elec-toral alliances. (For more extensive informa-tion, see Blais & Massicotte, 2002; Nohlen,2000; Powell, 2000.)

ELECTORAL BROADCASTS

In addition to the differences in the politicalsystems, the specific features of the media sys-tems should be of relevance because of theimportance of political advertising and its for-mats in the different countries. This concernsthe media system in general and, more specifi-cally, the structure of the broadcasting system,as well as the function or status of the differentmedia from the perspective of the audience.

The countries represented in this book againdiffer considerably in the historical develop-ment of their broadcasting systems, and thishas consequences for current structures and,finally, for the regulation of political advertis-ing. Commercial broadcasting and competi-tion among several television companies havea long tradition in the United States, but suchsystems were only introduced in most WestEuropean countries in the 1980s. Today, thesecountries feature dual systems, with public ser-vice broadcasting remaining a major player inthe market, and thus the social responsibilityphilosophy of the public service model is stillvery much alive. The Eastern Europeancountries, where the media were in the handsof the state or the ruling parties for more thanfour decades after World War II, restructuredthe media systems after the political changes of1989 and have also built up dual broadcastingsystems. However, because it did not have thelong tradition of public service broadcasting,this part of the system often is in a weakerposition than in Western Europe. The publicservice idea has also been exported beyondthe European continent. Chile, for example,reformed its formerly government-run andthen military controlled television networkaccording to the BBC model after the end ofthe Pinochet dictatorship in 1993.

The development of distribution technolo-gies, the emergence of dual broadcasting sys-tems, and the ensuing commercializationprocess have led to a radical change in the sit-uation of the broadcasting media in generaland of political broadcasting in particular.Overall, competition has increased, mostly tothe disadvantage of political contents. Wheretelevision stations strive to attract the biggestaudience possible in the interest of their adver-tising clients, politics has to adapt to the rulesof the game, meaning it must adopt an enter-tainment format or end up in a marginal role.

With the multiplication of channels, thenumber of outlets for political advertising hasincreased. However, those countries in particular

8 HOLTZ-BACHA AND KAID

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 8

that have a long tradition of public servicebroadcasting did not automatically open upthe commercial television sector for electoraladvertising. Those that did did not necessarilyallow candidates or parties to freely purchasebroadcasting time. Table 1.2 shows whereadvertising time can be purchased in the pub-lic or commercial television sector.

The picture that emerges here is quite clear.Public television is mostly out of bounds forthe purchase of advertising time. Only somecountries allow for advertising time to be pur-chased on public television, and these arecountries not in the traditional public servicezone of Western Europe. Commercial tele-vision, on the other hand, has indeed broughtnew possibilities for electoral advertising, with

many countries giving candidates or partiesthe opportunity to expand their presence onthe screen during election campaigns. It mustbe kept in mind, however, that these tablesonly include countries where electoral adver-tising on television is allowed in one way orthe other; countries that do not have any elec-toral advertising on television at all are notrepresented.

In addition to, or instead of, allowing for thepurchase of advertising time, many countriesallocate free broadcasting time to parties orcandidates during electoral campaigns. Thusthese countries keep campaign broadcastsunder control by fixing the time span duringwhich electoral advertising is broadcast, themethod of allocation, the amount of time, and

1. Political Advertising in International Comparison 9

Table 1.2 Purchase of Time on Television

Country On Commercial TV On Public TV

Argentina Yes YesAustralia Yes NoAustria Yes NoBelgium No NoBrazil No NoBulgaria Yes YesCanada Yes YesChile No NoCzech Republic No NoEstonia Yes NoFinland Yes NoFrance No NoGermany Yes NoGreece Yes NoIsrael No NoItaly Yes NoJapan Yes NoLatvia Yes YesLithuania Yes YesMexico Yes NoNetherlands Yes NoPoland Yes YesPortugal No NoRussia Yes YesSouth Korea Yes YesSpain No NoUnited Kingdom No NoUnited States Yes No

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 9

the number of slots that are given to cam-paigners. In some cases, further restrictionsapply to the contents of the free-time broad-casts. Table 1.3 gives an overview of whichcountries provide free air time and if so, if thatis on public or commercial television.

Free time provided on public television isthe most common model in our sample. Thereare only a few exceptions, with some countriesaccording parties or candidates no free seg-ments at all or only on commercial television.The provision of free broadcasting time onpublic television seems to be closely connectedwith the public service philosophy that still

very much rules the Western Europeancountries. Against this background, the casesof Austria, Finland, Italy, and the UnitedKingdom merit further discussion becausethey have chosen a different path. Austria andFinland do not provide free air time on anysystem but allow parties to buy advertisingtime on commercial television. Finland, whichis therefore regarded as the “odd case” amongthe Nordic countries (see chapter 11), liftedthe ban on paid political advertising and hasallowed for purchase of advertising time oncommercial television since 1991. Austria onlyrecently changed its law: Until 2002, when a

10 HOLTZ-BACHA AND KAID

Table 1.3 Provision of Free Political Television Advertising Time

Free Time onNo Free Free Time Free Time on Both Public and

Country Time on Public TV Commercial TV Commercial TV

Argentina xAustralia xAustria xBelgium xBrazil xBulgaria xCanada xChile xCzech Republic xEstonia xFinland xFrance xGermany xGreece xIsrael xItaly xJapan xLatvia xLithuania xMexico xNetherlands xPoland xPortugal xRussia xSouth Korea xSpain xSwitzerland xUnited Kingdom xUnited States x

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 10

new law was passed that abolished the oldregulation, public television allocated freetime for parties during election campaigns.However, they are allowed to purchase timeon commercial television. The snag is thatpublic television in Austria had a monopolyuntil a couple of years ago. Now commercialbroadcasting is allowed, but still there is onlya limited number of private stations and onlyone with a nationwide schedule. Acquiringparty advertising carried by “windows forAustria” on German or other international com-mercial television channels has thus gainedmore importance than buying broadcast timeon the Austrian commercial outlets.

The history of electoral advertising in Italyis of a more colorful nature. Campaign adswere broadcast by the commercial stationsuntil a new law was passed in 1993 thatbanned spots during the hot campaign phase.The former regulation allowed for purchase ofan unlimited number of spots. In 2000, a newlaw obliged the local commercial stations toprovide free air time and be reimbursed by thestate. In addition, it is possible to buy extrabroadcast time on the same channels. The pub-lic service network, RAI, however, remainscompletely ad free.

The situation is somewhat similar in theUnited Kingdom. The “mother of public ser-vice broadcasting,” the BBC, which does notair any commercial advertising at all, was keptfree from political advertising as well, butcommercial television provides free air timefor electoral broadcasts.

Different models are applied if air time isallocated to parties or candidates. Althoughelection laws or other campaign regulationsusually prescribe equal treatment for all com-petitors, that does not necessarily mean anequal amount of time is given to each of them.In fact, most countries apply a system ofproportional allocation, with bigger partiesreceiving more airtime than the smaller ones.

Ads that must be purchased tend to be veryshort, but there is much variety in the usual

length of the free broadcasts. Some countriesprovide parties and candidates with long timesegments or started out with 20- or 30-minutebroadcasts. In the first elections in 1993,Russia gave parties 20-minute slots, whichwere deemed far too long, and the countrytherefore cut down the time allocated to cam-paigners. In other countries, free time for par-ties is much shorter and approaches the samelength that parties use when they have to payfor advertising time. An exemplary case forthis development is Germany. Here, partieswere allocated 5- to 10-minute slots whenpolitical advertising was first introduced ontelevision in 1957. Over the years, the time forindividual slots was reduced and has nowreached 90 seconds, and 30 and 45 secondsare the usual lengths parties use when theypurchase time on commercial television.

In addition to regulations as to where elec-toral advertising is allowed and whether airtime can be purchased, further restrictionsapply in most countries. Again, the UnitedStates is the exceptional case: Electoral advertis-ing has no limits at all. Several countries imposerestrictions on the amount of money the partiesor candidates are allowed to spend for theirtelevision advertising. Of the countries repre-sented here, this is the case in Argentina,Canada, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Poland,and South Korea. According to Mexican law,for instance, the total amount spent for televi-sion advertising should not exceed 20% of thepublic financing for parties during presidentialelections and 12% for congressional elections.It is estimated that candidates and parties spendup to 80% of their public funds for advertisingon television. Poland sets a general limit forthe advertising campaign in parliamentary elec-tions. Similarly, there is a limit for the totalamount of money that parties are allowed tospend for their campaign in Latvia andLithuania.

There also exist diverse provisions concern-ing the contents of the electoral broadcasts.These mostly apply to the video part of the

1. Political Advertising in International Comparison 11

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 11

ads. In Israel, for example, the broadcastsmust be approved by the Central Committeeof Election. Broadcasts can be prohibited ifthey divulge security secrets or if they usesoldiers or abusive language. Italy and Japanin general do not allow negative advertising.Electoral ads in Mexico fall under the freespeech article of the Constitution and are sup-posed to avoid any affront, defamation, orslander that may denigrate candidates, parties,or other institutions. However, this provisionis infringed easily without being sanctionedin any way. As for advertising in general,Bulgaria does not allow electoral advertisingto feature the state’s coat of arms and thenational anthem. France is particularly restric-tive, prohibiting the use of public buildingsand the national anthem and restricting theamount of preproduced videoclips that can beused. In Finland, regulations on content aredifferent according to the broadcaster con-cerned. The biggest commercial broadcaster,MTV3, rules that only image advertisingfor parties and other organizations can beinserted. Advertising for single candidates isnot allowed, to avoid the appearance of a can-didate in an ad and in the program followingthe ad. Although parties and organizations canbe judged and compared, negative assessmentsof electoral candidates are not allowed. Theseare special regulations MTV3 has put up; thesecond largest channel (Nelonen) simplyapplies the regular advertising rules to politicaladvertising as well.

Even if air time can be purchased by partiesor candidates, the time period for electoraladvertising and the number and length of thebroadcasts are often limited. In Mexico, forexample, the law prescribes the maximumnumber of hours of electoral ads in any presi-dential elections: Ad hours are not to exceed250 hours on radio and 200 hours on tele-vision. This total number of hours is dividedproportionately among all presidential candi-dates according to their party’s current per-centage in congress. Candidates without anyrepresentation in congress receive 4%. Of the

remaining number of hours, 30% is distrib-uted evenly to all parties regardless of theirpercentage in congress and 70% proportion-ately according to their strength in congress.The same regulation is applied for congres-sional elections, but advertising time isrestricted to 50% of the amount available forpresidential elections.

CONCLUSION

This overview of just a sample of 28 countriesleaves a mixed picture. The United Statesstands out, with its complete openness towardpolitical advertising and the great importancethat campaigners attach to television ads. Theonly common characteristic for the othercountries is that all have some restrictions.Even where electoral advertising has acquireda major role as a campaign instrument, thereare always some limitations. Why electoraladvertising is restricted and which limitationsapply can in some cases be traced back toinfluences from the specific political, electoral,or media system. However, even countrieswith similar contexts differ in their regulationof political advertising.

The same is true for the role televisionadvertising plays in electoral campaigns. In aquestionnaire that we used in advance to col-lect data on the regulation of electoral adver-tising in the different countries, we also askedour respondents to rate the importance of elec-toral advertising on television compared toother campaign channels. Ratings were givenon a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (notimportant at all) to 7 (most important). In gen-eral, the importance attributed to televisionads is rather high in the countries consideredhere. Compared to other paid media, electoraladvertising on television received a mean scoreof 5.54 (n = 28). However, with a value of1.66, the standard deviation was quite high.The lowest score (1 = not important at all), forexample, was given for Senegal, the highest(7 = most important) for Bulgaria and Mexico.Compared to other campaign channels in

12 HOLTZ-BACHA AND KAID

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 12

general, the overall rating was somewhatlower, reaching 4.81 (n = 28). In this case, thestandard deviation was even higher (1.84),thus reflecting the diverse situation of electoraladvertising in the countries represented here.

Against the background of this more or lessheterogeneous picture, it appears necessary todig deeper into the history and current situationof political advertising of individual countries.The chapters in this book all follow a similarstructure and thus allow for comparison ofthe development of political advertising acrosscountries. After chapter 2, which provides anoverview of the methodologies used to studypolitical advertising, the chapters are organizedaround the central features of each country orregion’s use of political advertising. Standingalone in the first section is the United States, theonly system in the world wherein all televisionadvertising is provided solely through a private,commercial television system in which time ispurchased by candidates and parties, and notime is given free on either commercial or pub-lic channels. The second group of chaptersdiscusses the political advertising in countrieswhere the public system of broadcasting pro-vides free time to candidates or parties, but notime can be purchased for political advertisingon either public or commercial television. Athird grouping of countries represents the dualbroadcasting systems in which various combi-nations of public and private commercialbroadcasting can result in candidates and par-ties both being given free time and purchasingtime on a variety of different broadcasting out-lets. In the last section, this volume presentsreview and analysis of how political advertisingis evolving in new and developing democraciesaround the world. A concluding chapter pro-vides some comparisons of research findings onthe content and effects of television advertisingaround the world.

NOTE

1. If not noted otherwise, this overview isbased on data provided by the authors of thecountry chapters in this book. In addition, wethank the following colleagues for informationabout the situation of electoral TV advertisingin their country: Roger Blum (Switzerland), PeterFilzmaier (Austria), Gustavo Martinez Pandiani(Argentina), Fabro Steibel (Brazil), and StefaanWalgrave (Belgium).

REFERENCES

Blais, A., & Massicotte, L. (2002). Electoral sys-tems. In L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi, & P. Norris(Eds.), Comparing democracies. Vol. 2: Newchallenges in the study of elections and voting(pp. 40–69). London: Sage.

Dalton, R. J. (2002). Citizen politics: Public opin-ion and political parties in advanced democra-cies (3rd ed.). New York: Chatham House.

Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparingmedia systems: Three models of media andpolitics. Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Holtz-Bacha, C. (2002). The end of old certainties:Changes in the triangle of media, political sys-tem, and electorate and their consequences.Ethical Perspectives, 9, 222–229.

Kaid, L. L., & Holtz-Bacha (Eds.). (1995). Politicaladvertising in Western democracies. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Nohlen, D. (2000). Wahlrecht und Parteiensystem[Electoral law and the party system] (3rd ed.).Opladen, Rhine Province: Leske + Budrich.

Powell, G. B., Jr. (2000). Elections as instrumentsof democracy: Majoritarian and proportionalvisions. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Roper, J., Holtz-Bacha, C., & Mazzoleni, G.(2004). The politics of representation. Electioncampaigning and proportional representation.New York: Peter Lang.

Swanson, D. L., & Mancini, P. (Eds.). (1996).Politics, media and modern democracy. Aninternational study of innovations in electoralcampaigning and their consequences. Westport,CT: Praeger.

1. Political Advertising in International Comparison 13

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 13

01-Kaid.qxd 5/17/2006 3:39 PM Page 14