Page 58 - An Introduction to Political Communication Second Edition

THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

As money becomes more important to the pursuit of political
communication, then, equality of opportunity and access to the
political process declines. Even more threatening, political power
becomes something which can be bought, in the manner of a Ross
Perot, an Asil Nadir or a James Goldsmith. In the former case, a
maverick billionaire used his money to create a significant political
base for two assaults on the American presidency. In the latter,
huge contributions to the British Conservative Party are alleged to
have been linked to the expectation of legal and other favours. In
the 1997 British general election campaign, the late industrialist
and anti-European Union campaigner James Goldsmith used his
substantial economic resources to organise a Referendum Party,
calling for an immediate referendum on continued British
membership of the EU. Although no Referendum Party candidates
won a parliamentary seat, the approximately £20 million spent by
Goldsmith on the campaign contributed significantly to
Conservative defeats in a number of marginal constituencies, and
demonstrated what many regarded as the inappropriate power of
money to influence democratic politics. The fact that Goldsmith
was not even resident in Britain made his financial usurping of the
political process even more offensive.
On the other hand, having money does not necessarily buy good
or effective political communication. As we have already observed,
the Conservatives’ relatively expensive 1987 campaign was widely
viewed by observers as weak (although the party still won the election)
in comparison to Labour’s much cheaper one. Innovation and
creativity in political communication, as in other forms of cultural
activity, are not the monopoly of the wealthy.
Whether the producers of political communication are creative
geniuses or not, however, money gives an advantage, all other things
being equal. In 1992, for example, the Conservative Party was able
to book 4,500 poster sites, at a cost of £1.5 million, as compared
to Labour’s 2,200 (cost, £0.5 million) and the Liberal Democrats’
500 (cost, £0.17 million) (Butler and Kavanagh, 1992, p.116).
Campaign spending as a whole in 1992 was £10.1 million for the
Tories, £7.1 million for Labour, and £2.1 million for the Liberal
Democrats (Ibid., p.260).
Criticisms of the rising costs of campaigning are, as one would
expect, more likely to be heard from those with less rather than
more access to the financial and other resources discussed here. That
does not invalidate them, but since power tends to attract money, it
seems unlikely that in Britain, the US, or other big capitalist

41