Let’s follow Britain’s lead: Ban political TV and radio ads

John Milloy

Attention political junkies: When was the last time you watched a YouTube clip of a clever political television commercial from Britain? The answer is probably never, because the U.K. bans paid political advertising on television and radio. Isn’t it about time Canada followed suit?

Think about it. Being able to turn on your TV without having to look at sweater vests or hear the term “just visiting” or “not up to the job” or “proven leadership” over and over and over again. It’s almost too exciting to contemplate.

Such a ban would not mean that parties or interest groups could not communicate with voters. In the U.K. political parties can reach out to voters through all the regular means including pamphlets, newspaper ads, social media and billboards. They are also given free air time on television and radio to make their pitches. These relatively short broadcasts are apportioned equally between the major parties and can be made available to smaller parties as long as they are contesting a significant number of seats.

The ban has been in place since the introduction of commercial television and radio in Britain in 1954. It has survived every major review of U.K. election laws as well as a high profile court challenge from a third-party advocacy group, whose activities are also covered by the ban.

What is most remarkable, however, is that it enjoys the full support of all major political parties.

The reason? Equality and fairness. Proponents argue that due to the powerful nature of broadcast media, measures need to be put in place to ensure that well-funded political parties or outside groups don’t try to dominate the airwaves, overshadow the efforts of lesser-funded parties and prevent them from getting their messages out.

There is also strong recognition of the manipulative power of broadcast advertising. As one of the judges who ruled in favour of the law put it: “The risk is that objects which are essentially political may come to be accepted by the public not because they are shown in public debate to be right but because, by dint of constant repetition, the public has been conditioned to accept them.”

Money is the other factor always mentioned. A major 1998 review of political funding in Britain strongly supported the broadcast ban. It pointed out that not only were voters not subject to a “barrage” of “propaganda,” but political parties did not have to undertake huge fundraising campaigns to pay for the ads, reducing the opportunity for wealthy donors to try to buy influence. The result was that all major political parties, not just the richest, got to have their views heard and election campaigns cost much less.

The fact that a political party has lots of money doesn’t make its platform better. Elections should be about voters being exposed to ideas and discussions that involve all sides, not just the most well-funded. And let’s be honest, here in Canada political TV and radio ads are rarely about highlighting a party’s political platform. They are usually cynical attempts to manipulate public opinion through the constant repetition of either vacuous feel-good themes or, more commonly, attacks on opponents. Most voters would welcome the ban.

I even think that political parties, in time, would also welcome it. Most significantly, it would reduce the constant need to raise large amounts of money. Parties wouldn’t also have to devote time and energy to create clever ads or try to respond to incoming barrages through counter-attacks.

I am deadly serious in putting forward this idea.

For too long, Canadians seem to have accepted the inevitability that we are heading to American-style campaigns with hundreds of millions of dollars spent on attack ads. Why do we need to look south for the future? Why not look to Britain as an example and distinguish ourselves from the United States through this relatively simple measure?

There are obvious challenges to this proposal. Partisan advertising disguising itself as government advertising would have to be stopped. Adopting a national system, similar to the one in Ontario, where government ads are first vetted by the Auditor General to ensure their neutrality might be a start. Social media is also not covered by the ban. As it evolves and continues to grow in importance, there is certainly room for a broader conversation.

Would such a ban withstand a court challenge?

Although it is impossible to say, in 2004 the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a law that imposed tough spending limits on activities by outside advocacy groups during federal elections. The court noted that Parliament had the right to balance freedom of expression with the “danger that political advertising may manipulate or oppress the voter.” Interestingly, the individual who challenged the law was a former MP who later re-entered federal politics. His name? Stephen Harper.

John Milloy is a former Ontario cabinet minister who served as MPP for Kitchener Centre from 2003 to 2014. Prior to that, he worked on Parliament Hill, including five years in the office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He is currently the co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and Assistant Professor of Public Ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural Practitioner in Residence in Wilfrid Laurier University’s Political Science department. John can be reached at: jmilloy@wlu.ca or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.