Post-Soviet Media Law & Policy Newsletter
Issue 24-25
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law January 31, 1996
Life in the Regions: A “Diary” of Local Election and Media
Occurrences
During the fall election period, a publication of the
Russian- American Press and Information Center, “Choice of the Regions,”
published weekly accounts that sometimes touched on the role of law and
regulation in the relationship of media to the election process. We reproduce
some of those accounts here.
ISSUE OF DECEMBER 20
Courts Play Increasing Role in Election
For the first time in recent history, the judiciary
was a key player in the Russian Parlimentary campaign. Many of the disputes
over such issues as advertising and corruption eventually wound up in one
place: the President’s Judicial Chamber for Informational Disputes. Though
not a true court (its rulings are non-binding), the Chamber helped cool
tensions that in 1993 would have resulted in fistfights.
In an interview, Chamber member Igor Ivanov said one
of the most controversial issues during campaign was the argument over
when to start campaigning. Russian legislation does not openly ban campaigning
before a candidate’s registration. The unclear statement that “campaigning
starts from the day of registration” generated conflicts across the country,
Ivanov said. Klin television, for example, started a LDPR (Zhirinovski)
promotion campaign long before the partyÆs registration. The Chamber
reviewed this case and ruled that Klin television had acted illegally.
Ivanov cited numerous examples like this: Brukhovetskiye Novosty from Krasnodar
region and Agrarian Party; Pravda Buryatii and the Social Justice bloc;
Orenburg Television and Our Home is Russia, and others.
Another questionable conflict revolved around the definition
of state and private media and the refusal to provide free air time by
media which claimed they were non-governmental. The Chamber took on one
such case and ruled that the daily Zaural’ye is a government publication
since it was established by a government enterprise, and as such must provide
free space to candidates. After this incident conflicts were reduced.
According to our expert, another legal problem needs
close attention. The federal law on the status of a deputy (Art. 16) guarantees
a deputy preferential treatment on state media in aanouncing news about
his or her professional activity. A conflicting piece of legislation,
the Election Law, guarantees the equality of all candidates, including
equal access to information and states that no candidate can use the perks
of the office to campaign. The situation reaches Byzantine proportions
when the candidate demanding free air time is at the same time a deputy
exercising his right. According to Ivanov, most media solved the
legal conundrum by simply denying access to deputies. The Chamber fielded
complaints from the deputies Barishev and Feigin regarding the denial by
two regional television companies of air time. Meanwhile in Chuvashia,
deputy Bikalova was refused publication of her article by Sovetskaya Chuvashiya.
The Chamber’s rulings of November 23 and November 30,
the Chamber underlined that state owned television companies and printed
media are obliged to provide free air time and advertising space to the
present deputies who are running for the Duma seats.
The campaign featured numerous examples of unfair advertising
tactics and violations of legal and ethical rules. The Chamber’s December
7 ruling upheld the demand of the newspaper Narodnaya Gazeta to deputies
Kozhendayev and Gmizin to change their advertising materials. The materials
contained direct abuses and ungrounded allegations about political rivals.
Such conduct by the deputies was ruled as not only immoral but illegal.
The Wasted Billions
On the eve of election day, the CEC received official
data on campaign spending and the financial sources of the participating
parties and blocs. While the consensus among experts is that the reported
contributions are only a fraction of the real contributions, it is still
useful to study who openly contributed to the parties.
The biggest spender was the Communist Party of the Russian
Federation (CPRF) followed by Congress of Russian Communities (KRO) and
Nash Dom Rossyia. When analyzing the elections results one can compare
the sucess of a party and its spending. Heavy spending is still not enough
to buy an election in Russia.
Here is the data of a few electoral blocs running for
Duma seats:
Our Home—Russia received 3 billion 235 million rubles,
80 million of which came from the CEC, 655 million from private contributions.
The bloc reported its own finances as 2 billion 500 million rubles.
The campaign spending of the bloc was 2 billion 443 million rubles.
Pamfilova-Gurov-Lisenko received 82 m. 500 thousand
rubles total, of which 80m. came from CEC, 2m. from the organization’s
sponsors, 500 thousand from private contributors. Total campaign spending
of the bloc was 35m. rubles.
Yabloko received 1 billion 915 million rubles of which
80m. came from the CEC and 1 billion 835 million from sponsors. Total campaign
spending was 515 million rubles.
Russia’s Democratic Choice—United Democrats received
3 billion 943 million rubles, of which 80 m. came from the CEC and 13 million
from other organizations. The house funds of the bloc are 3 billion 850
million rubles. The campaign spending was 2 billion 295 million rubles.
The Communist Party of the Russian Federation received
770 million rubles of which 80 m. came from CEC, 113 million from other
organizations, and 142 million from private donors. The party’s private
funds were 435 million. Total campaign spending was 608 million roubles.
Congress of Russian Communities received 5 billion 282
million rubles of which 80 m. came from CEC, 839 million from sponsors.
The private funds of the party were 4 billion 363 million rubles. Total
campaign spending was 4 billion 874 million rubles.
The LDPR (Zhirinivski) election fund received 10 billion
705 million rubles of which 80 came from CEC, 5 billion 258 million from
organizations, and 997 million from private donors. The private LDPR funds
were 4 billion 370 million rubles. Totalelectoral spending was 9 billion,
89 million rubles.
The Communists—Working Russia for the Soviet Union received
80 million from the CEC, and reported no campaign spending.
ISSUE OF DECEMBER 13 (ON THE EVE OF THE ELECTIONS)
Irkutsk
On December 13, a leading political figure charged
that bribe-taking by the press during the campaign reached epidemic proportions.
At a news conference devoted to the joint nomination of a single candidate
by the Irkutsk branches of “Russia’s Choice,” the Christian Democratic
Union [CDU], and the “Pamfilova-Gurov-Lysenko” bloc, Vitaliy Kamyshev,
chairman of the CDU’s Irkutsk branch, said: “One has the impression
the democratic press has completely disappeared in Irkutsk. Not one
newspaper wants to print a single word about the democrats for free. Do
the media all think that our grounds for publicizing our information are
not serious enough?”
Journalists responded to this statement, in the words
of one editor, who requested anonymity: “If we charged no money,
there would have been no press in Irkutsk at all.”
Svetlana Deryabina, the director of the “I’m Going to
Vote” show on Irkutsk State Television and Radio, says that problem
lies with the candidates. She said journalists for this leading station
literally have to chase candidates imploring them to go on the air and
present their platforms. Some say they are “not ready yet” - others
limit their appearances to free political advertisements. “They do
not understand that everybody watches the news but as a rule turns off
his television when the campaign speeches begin,” Deryabina says. Asked
whether she thinks that candidates simply do not trust journalists whom
they do not pay, Svetlana opined that candidates who are not ready to talk
with the press are not ready to be elected. She added that independent
candidates are generally more willing appear live in news programs.
Moscow Region
Valeriy Galchenko, a candidate for governor of the
Moscow Region, has appealed to his rivals to use only fair and legal methods
in their campaigning. In June 1995, the Joint Coordinating Council
“For Fair Elections and a Professional Duma” was set up at Galchenko’s
initiative. At first a group oriented around democrats, “For Fair Elections”
later brought together representatives of various parties and blocs, as
well as candidates for the State Duma from the Moscow Region. The council’s
main objective is to stop attempts to breach electoral legislation during
the elections and to head off vote-rigging. Calling on his rivals to join
the coordinating council’s effort, Galchenko said that a guarantee
of fair elections will instill in voters the confidence that their views
will be heeded and that the person for whom the majority voted will truly
become governor.
Novokuznetsk
Last October, the Central Elections Commission
published a now-famous list of people’s criminal records running for the
State Duma. Because of a mistake by the federal authorities, one
candidate was surprised to find himself among the criminal class. Valeriy
Sergeevich Myasnikov, the regional candidate of the “Forward, Russia!”
movement, says his chances of becoming elected are now significantly reduced.
According to our Novokuznetsk correspondent, there is another Valeriy Sergeyevich
Myasnikov living in Novokuznetsk, who only a few weeks ago was released
from a penitentiary after serving time on felony charges. The two
Valeriy Sergeyeevich’s have different birth dates and places of birth,
which should have tipped off the CEC. Furthermore, Myasnikov-2, who
was at the time serving his prison sentence, legally could not have been
nominated to run for the State Duma. “It is regrettable that the
electoral machine compounds its errors and mauls everything indiscriminately,”
our correspondent comments. A spokesman for Forward, Russia!”
said the party is planning to sue the Central Elections Commission for
libel and will claim compensation for moral damages.
Perm Region
The local administration has unveiled a series of
tax breaks for the media on the eve of the campaign. According to a recent
announcement, newspapers will be exempted from paying that share of income
tax that goes to the regional budget. The press stands to save about 1.4
billion rubles as a result of the generosity of the regional authorities.
Independent publications that have high circulation and therefore high
income will benefit the most from the tax exemption. Sources at the local
journalists’ union say that within a week a similar exemption will be announced
for the broadcast media. Observers see an attempt by the local administration
to win the support of the mass media during a difficult election campaign.
Campaigning in the Perm region occasionally involves
unclean methods. An example is the recent appeal from public figures and
scholars of the Kama territory to voters which was published in the daily
“Permskie novosti.” Among those who signed the appeal and garnered
much good publicity was Yevgeny Sapiro, chairman of the regional legislative
assembly. True, he signed it as Doctor of Economics and Professor, but
his name is associated in voters’ minds with the job of regional leader.
Asked by “Choice of the Regions” to comment, Leonid Bagdatiev, chairman
of the control group of the regional elections commission, said: “There
is no violation of the CEC regulation prohibiting using one’s job for campaign
advantages here since Sapiro did not sign the appeal as head of the regional
legislative assembly.” The local press has ignored the incident.
Sounding the Alarm: Violations in Vladivostok
Efforts by regional governor Evgeni Nazdrotsenko
to control voters’ exposure to candidates reached critical mass this week,
when an opponent’s plans to broadcast an interview critical of the governor
were broken up. The television appearance of Igor Lebedinets, an
independent candidate for the State Duma and for governor was originally
scheduled for the end of November. The candidate invited a local journalist,
Valentina Voronova, to anchor the interview. However on the day of the
interview, Voronova was prevented from entering the TV studio. Instead,
the station manager replaced her with another journalist, Boris Makarichev,
the anchor of the program Vremya Mestnoye. The interview was ruined
by the hostile anchorman. Nearly every word Lebedinets said that wascritical
of the activity of the administration and the present governor was interrupted
by the anchorman. Finally, Lebedints gave up and left the studio before
the show was over.
The chairman of the regional electoral commission, E.
Khrustalev, called the candidate’s actions “a provocation,” saying:
“We were expecting a provocation from Lebedinets and he did not let us
down.” Khrustalev said there were no violations of Electoral law
by the television station’s leadership, and referred to the CEC instruction
“On the Rules Governing the Provision of Free Air Time on the State Radio
and Television.” Article 2.27 of these rules states: “Radio and television
stations should appoint the moderator of debates, round tables and
should then inform participating candidates about the decision.”
However, democratically-oriented organizations and candidates
were incensed: “This is an example of how to restore censorship,” said,
Ilya Grinichenko, the leader of the Vladivostok “Democrat” club.
The few remaining independent commentators in Vladivostok say the incident
is a clear violation of election law which guarantees candidates the right
to choose the format of his or her appearance. The electoral instruction
that was quoted by the local EC chairman does not apply to this case, says
Grinichenko, as it allows stations to chose moderators of debates and round
tables, but not of interviews.
The actions of the television station management also
apparently violated the Law on Mass Media. The law allows journalists such
as Voronova the right to freely enter state buildings, including the building
where the Vladivostok regional television is housed.
As the scandal evolved, the regional Commission for
the Control of Elections Coverage reviewed the dispute. It ruled in Lebedintsev’s
favor, saying the candidate should be given extra television air-time television.
But Lebedintsev did not stop at that. He sued the television
station for damages. Alexander Khizinsky, deputy chairman of the
district court said the lawsuit can only be taken up by the court “in 15
or 20 days.” By that time, says Lebedintsev, it will be too late.
More freedom of information violations were reported
in St. Petersburg. Our St. Petersburg correspondent reports
that the local EC denied accreditation to a correspondent from Russia’s
first independent news agency “Postfaktum”. According to the correspondent,
the EC officials explained the denial with the words: “you journalists
have become unbearable. There are simply too many of you.”
Choice of the Regions asked Iosif Dzyaloshinski, the
Chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee, to comment on the EC
decision. The following is his opinion: “The officials of the St. Petersburg
Electoral Committee clearly violated the provisions of the Federal Law
On Mass Media. Article 48 of this law says that a media organ has
the right to apply to a state body for accreditation, and the state body
is required to provide accreditation to the representative of the
mass media.
Article 61 of the same law states that “denial of accreditation
can be appealed in court. If the court finds the denial illegal,
the offending state body may be required to provide accreditation and compensate
the media organ for its losses.”
ISSUE OF DECEMBER 7
In response to efforts by the Primor’ye administration
to limit the opposition’s access to state-owned media, the editor of Boyevaya
Vakhta (BV) decided to provide equal access to all regional candidates,
free of charge. At first, the regional EC supported this action.
Then, a few days later, the EC reversed itself and barred the paper from
running the material on the grounds that BV is a military paper and, as
such, had no right to run campaign advertising. The authorities suggested
the editor read carefully article 45 of the election law, which prohibits
military publications from carrying campaign information. BV’s editor
replied that Krasnaya Zvezda (the Russian Army daily) is on the Russian
Press Committee’s list of government-supported newspapers— meaning that
it is required by the election law to provide free space to all parties
— and that BV had the right to do the same. This argument didn’t
help BV’’s cause.
The article in Krasnaya Zvezda (KZ) in which CEC chairman
Nikolai Ryabov said that KZ should “help our voters in uniform” was considered
by the local authorities “the private opinion of a private citizen.” Ryabov
said Krasnaya Zvezda should not endorse any particular party or candidate.
One would have thought that if this were true of the flagship of Russian
military periodicals, it would also be true of Boyevaya Vakhta.
The facts of the case was presented to the Central Election
Commission. The Central Election Commission stated that Article 45
of the election law applies to Boyevaya Vakhta. The commission also
said to disregard the opinions of CEC chairman Ryabov.
As it turns out, Krasnaya Zvezda has received orders
from senior government officials prohibiting it from carrying political
advertising, and has so informed the CEC by letter. Boyevaya Vakhta
has not sent any letters—discipline is discipline, after all—and will fall
in line behind Krasnaya Zvezda. And what about voters in uniform?
They will just have to settle for the campaign reports of other local media,
which, our Vladivostock correspondent reports, are heavily slanted in favor
of powerful incumbents.
Regional News
Obninsk
Government-owned Vecherni Obninsk and radio “Obninsk,”
seeking to maximize revenues, have refused to provide free advertising
to the parties as required by CEC regulations of state media. Vecherni
Obninsk’s editor, Vladimir Boiko, justifies his paper’s policy by saying
that the local administration is not a governing body. But the city
government includes the Mayor who is also head of the local administration.
And everyone in town knows who created Vecherni Obninsk.
The regional newspaper Znamya has begun publishing an
election diary by its editor Nataliya Doronina. Although the paper
claims to be politically independent, the author’s bias comes through in
this comment satirizing those who fear a Communist victory: “The idea of
postponing the elections fits into the scenario of delaying the inevitable
transition of power—it would be too horrific (say those who would postpone
the elections) if the stupid masses would vote for the Communists or the
Agrarian party. ‘What a nightmare,’ shouts a motley-looking character
from the TV screen. We hear these kinds of incitements to fear from
our two-bit ‘democrats’ every day. One’s blood curdles.”
Rostov-on-Don
The Election Commission of the Rostov region has
organized a drawing of lots for free air time and advertising space in
local media. The procedure for the drawing was accepted by everyone,
but the results made for many unhappy candidates. The advertising
will be aired from Monday to Friday on the second state channel from 5
p.m. to 6 p.m. It is no coincidence that this is exactly the time
when the majority of the population is on its way home from work.
Meanwhile, newspapers report that most candidates have
failed to provide their advertising messages on time. After a delay
of two days, Molot started to publish campaign ads after having received
just 8 out of 20 required promotional materials. Regional newspapers
have started to drop out of the agreed upon schedule and are printing advertising
material on a haphazard basis. If this practice continues, it is
bound to create serious problems: at least 53 candidates missed the deadline
and they will probably demand publication of their advertising regardless
of the schedule. The media will find it increasingly difficult to
satisfy their needs as the campaign grinds on.
Thus, a conflict between candidates and media is looming.
One Rostov correspondent said he was careful not to mention any cases of
candidates violating their air time schedules since many candidates are
seeking opportunities for scandal.
For the Rostov region, the main problem in the present
electoral campaign lies not in the lack of equal access of candidates to
the media but in the candidatesÆ irresponsibility in using the free
air time paid for by the taxpayers.
Samara
According to Samarskiye Izvestiya, 53 candidates
are running for the State Duma in single mandate districts. They
have won the right of free access to the state media which in the Samara
region are the daily Volzhskaya Kommuna and the television station “Samara”.
Volzhskaya Kommuna is publishing the biographies of the candidates, their
electoral programs, opinion polls and other relevant information in special
inserts designed for “easy reading”. This is already a big improvement
over coverage during the 1993 campaign.
On television, candidates will enjoy 40 minutes
of free air time. The air time, however will be strictly regulated.
Instructions specify that only monologues, discussions and interviews are
permitted. This is to prevent candidates from airing inflammatory
or insulting video clips about each other. Air time can also be purchased
for 600,000 rubles a minute on television and three times cheaper on the
radio.
Meanwhile, the independent Samara weekly Alex Inform
reports that the heads of Samara oblast’s regional and district election
commissions complained to the CEC, warning that the centerÆs policies
threaten the accuracy of vote counting. They charge that Moscow
headquarters are out of touch with the regions and have pushed local officials
to adopt a flawed system of vote-counting which seriously compromises their
work. They also complained of a lack of funds.
An independent candidate to the State Duma, Andrei Kiselev,
has won popularity among the electorate with his calls for Duma deputies
to waive their immunity from prosecution. Said Kiselev: “The elected candidates
should have the same status before the law as those who elected them and
should have no special rights. If these privileges are waived, the
chances of bad candidates emerging is reduced. Fewer criminals will
run for office if they cannot use their official position as a shield from
law enforcement.” The federal government released statistics indicating
that some 100 candidates for the State Duma have criminal records.
ISSUE OF NOVEMBER 27
Commentary by Viktor Monakhov of the Information Disputes Chamber:
Saint Petersburg TV’s Channel 11 announced in
early November that was offering free air time to all candidates, giving
rise to some doubts as there are 152 candidates running in the city’s 8
electoral districts. TV anchorman Dmitri Zapolski put these doubts
to rest by featuring a single candidate. He introduced a spot featuring
Dmitri Rozhdestvenski, candidate from the 207th district, and, as it happens,
chairman of the state enterprise, Russkoye Video. Everything was
fine until Mr. Rozhdestvenski again appeared on the TV screen a week later.
Since then “Christmas Evenings” [ed., Rozhdestvenski is Russian for Christmas]
have became a regular part of the evening program in prime time. Channel
11, it turns out, is a subsidiary of Russkoye Video. And it offers
it’s boss daily air time. Mr. Rozhdestvenski is, for example, a regular
guest on the show Babylon, a program devoted to crime and underworld news,
which is why it’s so popular. The show is critical of the authorities
at all levels. They are portrayed as helpless in the fight against
crime, and the underlying message is that they should be turned out of
office—and others elected in their place.What about Channel 11’s offer
of free air time to all candidates? Even if they present 2 or 3 candidates
a day, it will take three months to present them all. And about violations
of the electoral law?
This report about Christmas Evenings implies a violation
of equal access of candidates to air time. Unfortunately, this information
lacks one detail which would allow us to evaluate the case from a legal
point of view.The first question here is the status of the media organization
in question. There are three possibilities: state-owned, city-owned
and private. Each category has specific rights and responsibilities.
As far as the first two are concerned, there is an instruction of the Central
Election Commission (September 9, 1995) on access to air time in state-owned
media according to which regional election commissions are supposed to
determine the status of local media and release to the public lists of
state- and city-owned media. This is the responsibility of the local
ECs, and if they have not done it yet, they should do it straight away.
The instruction does not deal with private media, but this doesn’t mean
that private media can do whatever they please. The private media
have their own guidelines determined by special regulations. They,
for example, may not libel or insult people, broadcast lies, or abuse the
right to electoral advertising.
There is one common principle for all media guaranteeing
equal access - Article 23 of the federal law “On Basic Guarantees of the
Electoral Rights of the Citizens of the Russian Federation” (Rossiskaya
Gazeta 10.12.94). But this legislation has different applications
depending on the status of those engaging in political advertising.
For example, if a state-owned periodical provides space to one candidate,
the law specifies that it has no right to deny it to another candidate,
and has to provide him with the same space on the same conditions in a
forthcoming issue (Art. 48 of the Federal law “On Elections to the State
Duma”). The law fails to spell out such conditions for broadcast
media with the same specificity. In the United States, equal time
regulations cover broadcast as well as print media. During Ronald
Reagan’s presidential campaign, US television aired his movies, giving
rise to demands from other candidates for equal time. Perhaps we
should think about introducing this rule here?
Television and the Elections: Memorandum of the National Association
of Television Broadcasters
1. The National Association of Television Broadcasters
(NAT) maintain that the main duty of television during the electoral campaign
is to serve the interests of voters - not those of politicians. NAT
members should strive to motivate the maximum number of viewers to understand
the importance of participation in the election. They should help the audience
to get full and truthful information about the political forces participating
in the campaign, so that voters can make responsible and independent choices.
2. NAT consider mistaken the practice adopted
during the last election of preventing journalists from analyzing campaign
developments. Allowing journalists to exercise their professional
responsibilities will protect the audience from attempts to manipulate
opinion by means of distorted facts, insinuations and propaganda.
NAT’s members insist that journalists have the right to be active participants
in election-related programming [ed., such as debates, interview programs
and special reports.]
3. NAT considers the thorniest professional problem
to be how to reconcile paid advertising with journalistic objectivity.
Broadcasters should understand that a good reputation is their trump card,
and no amount of money received from the parties, their sponsors or candidates
can substitute for it. NAT fully understand the desire of broadcasters
to be economically profitable, but strongly recommend caution when preparing
paid political programs. In any case, broadcasters must secure the
ability to ask impartial questions.
4. It would be hypocritical to insist that journalists
have no political opinions of their own, or should hide those opinions.
NAT’s members insist only that the role of the journalist is not to support
one candidate and discredit another, but to compare views, offer unbiased
analyses of ideas, facts and arguments, and scrutinize the answers to questions
of concern to the audience. At the same time, the members of NAT
consider it their right and duty to deny access to the air to political
forces that would destabilize society, and make it impossible to guarantee
basic human rights and freedoms including freedom of speech, and press.
5. The members of the Association understand that in
the hurly-burly of the campaign, pressures will be brought to bear on the
media not only on the part of the authorities, but on the part of criminal
forces as well.
The National Association of Television Broadcasters
will use all of its influence, including collective action, in order to
defend the rights of its members against lawlessness and disorder.