Political Campaigning and censorship

Definition: Activities undertaken by political parties and candidates contesting public elections

Significance: Three aspects of political campaigning have raised censorship issues: candidates’ access to the media; government access to political party membership lists; and restrictions on campaign financing

Political campaigning has several important connections to issues of censorship. There is, for example, the matter of who actually belongs to parties and organizations, and how identifying members might infringe on their right to free speech. There are a number of issues relating to campaign financing. Historically, the fact that those wealthy enough to contribute to political campaigns have had their voices heard over those unable to make substantial contributions has been a form of censorship of the poor. Conversely, modern legislation restricting the amounts individual persons and groups can contribute to campaigns is another form of censorship. Finally, there is the matter of which candidates should be permitted time on the public airways—regardless of who pays for such time.

US Political Campaigns and Broadcasting

Since 1934 the body that has governed the coverage of national political campaigns and political campaigning on the airways has been the Federal Communications Commission. Its “fairness doctrine,” which was enforced until 1986, was an attempt to ensure that the views of certain groups or individuals were not censored by the refusal of television or radio stations to broadcast their campaign material. The policy was designed to ensure that balanced coverage greeted not only political campaign material, but campaign news reporting in general. In 1959, however, American lawmakers changed the section of the Communications Act of 1934 to remove news stories related to political candidates involved in a campaign from the balanced coverage requirement. The fairness doctrine remained controversial until its abandonment in 1986. Television and radio stations decried it as government imposed censorship while others saw the rules as one way of ensuring balanced coverage, or, at the least, that more than one voice was heard.

The issue of censorship and the airways remained important in the 1996 US presidential election. H. Ross Perot, the presidential candidate leader of the Reform Party, sought to be included in the nationally broadcast debates between the two major-party candidates for the presidency, Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican Robert Dole. An election committee ruled, however, that Perot could be excluded because he did not have a realistic chance of winning the election. This decision prompted cries of censorship from Perot’s campaign, which argued that its candidate’s voice had been silenced.

Party Membership and US Political Campaigning

In 1958 the state of Alabama tried to curtail the local civil rights work of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); it demanded several sets of records from the organization. The NAACP turned over to the state all the requested documentation, except its membership lists—because it feared for the safety of those on the lists. A state judge held the organization in contempt and imposed a $100,000 fine. The organization appealed the case to the US Supreme Court, which unanimously overturned the lower court decision. The Court ruled that the Alabama law violated the First Amendment rights of NAACP members freely to associate with each other. This case had clear implications for issues connected to political campaigning censorship.

Financing of US Political Campaigns

The financing of political campaigns in the United States has also had censorship implications. The US Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision in 1976, for example, was described by journalist Elizabeth Drew as equating “freedom of speech with the spending of money.” The case had its roots in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in 1974, when the US Congress passed a revised Federal Election Campaign Act covering campaign financing. The law called for public funding of presidential campaigns, spending limits for candidates seeking office, financial limits on donations by groups and individuals to campaigns, and—most controversially—prohibition of campaign spending of more than one thousand dollars by those uninvolved in any of the campaigns. These provisions were struck down in Buckley v. Valeo. Opponents of the campaign finance law felt that the limits it imposed on third parties infringed on freedom of speech. The Supreme Court agreed when it overturned the objectionable provisions of the law in January 1976. At the same time, however, the Court upheld most of the law’s other provisions. Congress passed a revised version in 1976.

In 2002, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Act, which prohibited corporations from running television commercials either supporting or denouncing presidential candidates for thirty days before the primaries. For the following several years, activists argued that this law encroached upon the corporations' First Amendment right to participate in the debate about the political issues. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned this provision of the law in 2010, agreeing that the restriction of specific speakers' political voices was against the First Amendment. However, the debate over upholding democracy while preventing the stifling of the opinions of everyday Americans has continued, especially due to the prevalence of super PACs and their influence in presidential elections.

Political Campaigning in Canada

Several countries besides the United States have dealt with issues of censorship and political campaigns. During the 1990s, for example, Japan proposed publicly financed election campaigns to prevent excessive influence on elections by the wealthy, and to end the censorship effect imposed on those who lacked the money to buy access to various forms of media.

Issues of political campaigns and censorship were also important in Canada during the 1980s and 1990s. In 1983 Canada’s federal government introduced spending limits on interest groups and individuals outside of the political process. The following year an Alberta provincial court struck down the legislation on the grounds that it violated freedom of speech provisions included in Canada’s Charter of Rights. Although this ruling was made by a single provincial court, the federal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney did not appeal it. The nation’s Chief Electoral Officer then ruled that no campaign spending limits applied anywhere in Canada. During the federal elections of 1988—in which the main issue was whether Canada should accept a free trade agreement with the United States—individuals and interest groups took advantage of the absence of spending restrictions by pouring large amounts of money into political campaigns. A last-minute advertising blitz by factions favoring free trade helped the governing Conservative Party win re-election.

The unprecedented involvement by outside political interests in a Canadian election campaign led the federal government to introduce a new law governing campaign spending in early 1993. This law, which was endorsed by the three main political parties, limited interest groups to contributions of a thousand dollars within any given four-week period. The legislation was widely denounced, especially by smaller political parties, which saw it as an infringement on their rights. The law did not last long, however. A court struck it down in June 1993.

Some Canadian provinces elected to introduce their own laws governing political campaigns. The province of British Columbia, for example, passed a law allowing for a maximum of five thousand dollars to be spent by members of the public or third-party interests, either in support or against a political party. The law generated widespread opposition, including cries of censorship during British Columbia’s 1996 provincial election when it was first enforced. One organization, the National Citizen’s Coalition, circumvented the law by airing radio and television advertisements on American border stations. The National Citizen’s Coalition had previously been instrumental in defeating the federal Canadian law that imposed similar restrictions.

Bibliography

Drew, Elizabeth. Politics and Money: The New Road to Corruption. New York: Macmillan, 1983.

Gitell, Seth. "Making Sense of McCain-Feingold and Campaign-Finance Reform." Atlantic. Atlantic Monthly Group, July/Aug. 2003. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.

Gray, Fred. Bus Ride to Justice. Black Belt, 1995. Print.

Headeen, Susan, and David Bowermaster. "The Kindness of Strangers." U.S. News & World Report 10 Oct. 1994. Print.

Jacobson, Gary C. Money in Congressional Elections. New Haven: Yale UP, 1980. Print.

Toobin, Jeffrey. "Money Unlimited." New Yorker. Condé Nast, 21 May 2012. Web. 25 Nov. 2015.