Page 62 - An Introduction to Political Communication Third Edition

THE EFFECTS OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

As Herbert Schiller notes, ‘the sums now spent on media advertising
in elections begin to match the expenditure of the largest corporate
advertisers for commercial products and services’ (1984, p. 117).
Expenditure by British political parties on election communication
has increased dramatically since the Second World War. In America,
hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on elections for everything
from presidents to local dog-catchers.
The damaging aspect of this trend, for those who are critical of it,
is that it discriminates against individuals and organisations without
access to the financial resources required for the pursuit of modern
politics. Despite the legal restrictions which exist in many countries
on how much funds may be raised for campaigning purposes, some
parties have a great deal less money to spend than others. These will
tend to be representatives of the already relatively disenfranchised,
marginalised sectors of society, who are thus driven even further
from the mainstream of the political process.
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 rather than won in a
democratic contest. 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

41