A summary: Climate Change, Election Spending and Propaganda.

By Peter Jones

United States 2012 Presidential Election
In the US Presidential Election  Republicans and Democrats and outside parties (called Super PACs) spent billions of dollars to woo the support of voters.  Now that the results are known, two questions arise:  did this advertizing decide the result?  And – if not – did this advertizing have any influence on voter choices?
Most qualified observers maintain that advertizing did have an influence, perhaps because both sides spent substantial amounts. They express the reservation that it is very difficult to point to voting patterns that confirm their isconclusion.   None of these observers conclude that the result was decided by a such a large expenditure.
Climate Change Advertizing
Most US media advertizing on climate change was negative.  Ads sponsored by big oil and big coal attacked renewable energy subsidies and the costs of replacing cheap fossil fuels with solar and wind power. These ads did not seem to have affected the outcome in individual states.
The Romney campaign ads supported continued use of coal in power plants.  The Romney campaign platform also stated that if he was elected he would approve the Keystone XL pipeline the first day he was in office.
The Digital Media
Although used by both parties, the Democrats were more reliant upon the digital media. The digital media makes it impossible – if it ever was possible – for a candidate to blanket television and the press with advertizing that crowds out an opponent’s efforts to get a platform before voters.
Canada’s Election Spending Regime
Restrictions regarding the spending of money by election participants, such as candidates and political parties, constitute a key element of Canada’s campaign finance rules.    Canadian political parties and their candidates are subject to modest limits on the amount that they can expend for campaign advertizing.   The parties are not restricted in the amount they can spend outside of election times.  Third parties are not permitted to support political parties or candidates but can advertize their opinions on issues that the electorate are considering.
So – unlike the US – Super PACs are not lawful in Canada.
Spending on “Political” advertizing outside of the election period is permitted, but the political parties recognize that voters don’t pay much attention to these partisan ads, and so their value is doubtful.
Canadian Advertizing out of election period
The fossil fuel industry has adopted a more effective strategy.  Get the message out now that  the world’s energy demands are increasing; that Canada can be the world’s reliable energy supplier; that fossil fuels create jobs; that fossil fuels are important to Canada’s economy;  that fossil fuels have an improving environmental record; that fossil fuels profits indirectly support many socially beneficial programs.
These messages are presented in a “low-key” format.  For example, the industry has bought supplements in newspapers such as the Globe and Mail that present factual comment and back up opinions from industry spokespersons.   The supplement reads like the Globe’s news.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers are almost daily advertizers on CBC Television News. These TV spots are often folksy, employing people who work in the industry, both executives and front line employees, who sincerely express their opinion why the oil sands (never the tar sands!) are so valuable to Canada.
On the international side, the President of Statoil, the Norwegian state-owned oil company and an investor in the tar sands, expresses the positive message that the world needs the oil sands.  He adds that the industry is constantly improving its safety and environmental standards for this resource.
The next Canadian election is almost three years away.  This subtle “propaganda” is worth more than the many millions that will be spent on election advertizing!

1 thought on “A summary: Climate Change, Election Spending and Propaganda.”

Comments are closed.