A/HRC/26/30 have an outright prohibition of paid campaign advertising on radio and television.40 Some legal frameworks have taken a middle ground approach, putting in place financial limits on paid advertising spending, paired with rules on equitable pricing, timing, duration and scheduling of advertising.41 In other situations, it is the electoral authority which is mandated to allocate electoral publicity by channelling public funds to different contenders in proportion to previous election results, with basic minimum support assured for new parties.42 53. Those who support unregulated paid political advertising often argue that it is an essential guarantor of freedom of expression in political and electoral processes. However, where paid political advertising presents an unfair advantage to certain political parties over others, and increases reliance on campaign financing, it may create unequal conditions for electoral processes. The European Court of Human Rights has recently recognized this, stating that the prohibition of paid political advertising was a justifiable limitation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression because it could protect against “powerful financial groups with advantageous access to influential media … obtain[ing] competitive advantages in the area of paid advertising and thereby curtail[ing] a free and pluralist debate, of which the State remains the ultimate guarantor.”43 54. States should therefore consider whether unrestricted paid political advertising may destabilize the playing field and impede the equal participation of certain parties or candidates in political campaigns. In all circumstances, paid political advertising should always be identified as such, and should not be disguised as news or editorial coverage. 55. The ability of a political party to generate funds to support the various costs related to political communication and campaigning is an additional determining factor as to whether a party is able to participate fully in elections, and is thus a central pillar of ensuring plurality in political and electoral processes. A political party may be indirectly prevented from participating fully in an election if it is unable to raise financing from diverse sources. Poorly regulated political finance has the potential to undermine the integrity of elections by enabling individuals or groups to exert undue influence on political candidates or parties, and may facilitate vote buying or bribery. Equally, restrictions that limit the ways in which a political party may disburse funds raised may also impede full and free participation in political and electoral processes, while unlimited political spending benefits wealthier candidates and parties and undermines political equality. 2. Media diversity and independence 56. Pluralistic electoral processes depend on the existence of a diverse range of media sources to convey ideas and educate the voters. States have the obligation to guarantee the right to access information and this entails, inter alia, promoting the independence and diversity of media. The media provide a platform for candidates to publicize their platforms and messages, and for analysing proposed policies, scrutinizing the political process and ensuring its integrity, and holding candidates and incumbents to account. A level electoral playing field is impossible without free, pluralistic and unrestricted media. To this end, national legal frameworks should be based on the fundamental premise that the media must 40 41 42 43 This is the case, for example, in the United Kingdom, France, Ireland and Belgium: See Centre for Law and Democracy, “Regulation of Paid Political Advertising: A Survey” (see footnote 39). This is the case, for example, in Barbados, Canada and Poland; see Centre for Law and Democracy, “Regulation of paid political advertising: a survey” (see footnote 39). This would be the case of Mexico. Case of Animal Defenders International v. The United Kingdom, Application no. 48876/08, 22 April 2013, para. [111]. 15