ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND MODEL CONDUCT.

The party in power whether at the Centre or in the State or States concerned, shall ensure that no
cause is given for any complaint that it has used its official position for the purposes of its election
campaign and in particular
Issue of advertisement at the cost of public exchequer in the newspapers and other media and the
misuse of official mass media during the election period for partisan coverage of political news and
publicity regarding achievements with a view to furthering the prospects of the party in power shall
be scrupulously avoided.1
Whether a Chief Minister/Minister/Speaker can attend a State Day function of a State?
There is no objection provided that he does not make any political speech on the occasion and the
function is to be conducted only by Govt. officials. No advertisement depicting the photograph of
Chief Minister/Minister/Speaker shall be released.2
Is there any restriction on issue of advertisement at the cost of public exchequer regarding
achievements with a view to furthering the prospects of the party in power?
Yes
The advertisement regarding achievements of the party at the cost of public exchequer in the print
and electronic media and the misuse of official mass media during the period of election is
prohibited.3
Whether hoardings/advertisements etc. depicting the achievements of the party(s) in power at
Centre/State Governments at the cost of public exchequer can be continued?
No

1 Model Code of Conduct, Publication Division, Election Commission of India, New Delhi ( updated
2007) pp 6-7.

2 Model Code of Conduct, Publication Division, Election Commission of India, New Delhi ( updated
2007) pp 11 .

3Model Code of Conduct, Publication Division, Election Commission of India, New Delhi ( updated
2007) pp 12.

All such hoardings, advertisements etc. on display shall be removed forthwith by the concerned
authorities. Further, no advertisements should be issued in the newspapers and other media
including electronic media at the cost of public exchequer.4
Whether political advertisements can be printed on back side of the bus-ticket of Govt. owned
buses?
No5
THE GEMINI CASE6
Rule 7(3) of the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 prohibits advertisements of religious or
political nature on television channels. This Rule was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in writ petition No. 3959 of 2004 and in some other connected writ petitions. The High Court
passed an interim order on 23rd March, 2004, staying the operation of Rule 7(3). The Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting filed an SLP before the Supreme Court against the interim order
dated 23rd March, 2004.
The Supreme Court, in an interim order passed on 13th April, 2004, directed that political parties,
candidates or any other person or organization, intending to issue advertisement of political nature
on TV Channel or Cable Network, should submit an application to the Commission or an officer
designated by the Commission along with copies of the proposed advertisements, and it is only after
obtaining necessary clearance from the Commission or the designated officer that the advertisement
should be shown on TV Channel or Cable Network.
The object of the Act is to regulate the operation of the Cable Television Network in the country.
Section 6 of the Act provides that no person shall transmit or re-transmit through a cable service any
advertisement unless such advertisement is in conformity with the prescribed advertisement code.
Section 11 of the Act provides that if any authorized officer has reason to believe that the provision
4 Model Code of Conduct, Publication Division, Election Commission of India, New Delhi ( updated
2007) , pp 17.

5 Model Code of Conduct, Publication Division, Election Commission of India, New Delhi ( updated
2007), pp17.

6 (2004) 5 SCC 714

of the Act have been or are being contravened by any cable operator, he may seize the equipment
being used by such cable operator for operating the cable television network. Section 12 of the Act
provides for confiscation of the equipment in the event of any violation of the provisions of the Act.
Similarly, Section 13 of the Act also provides for seizure or confiscation of the equipments and
punishment. Section 16 further provies for punishment for contravention of the provisions of the
Act. Section 19 lays down that an authorized officer, if he thinks necessary or expedient so to do in
the public interest, may, by order, prohibit any cable operator from transmitting or re- transmitting
any advertisement which is not in conformity with the prescribed programmed code and
advertisement code and it is likely to promote enmity on grounds of religion, race, language, caste
or community or any other grounds whatsoever disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will
between different religion, racial, linguistic or regional groups or caste or communities or which is
likely to disturb public tranquility. Section 22 of the Act empowers the Central Government to
frame Rules to carry out the provisions of the Act. The Central Government in exercise of the
powers conferred on it by section 22 of the Act is empowered to make Rules which are known as
the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994 [for short, the Rules]. Rule 7 of the Rules provides
that where an advertisement is carried in the cable service it shall be so designed as to conform to
the laws of the country and should not offend morality, decency and religious susceptibilities of the
subscribers. Sub-rule (2), inter alia, provides that no advertisement shall be permitted which derides
any race, caste, color, creed and nationality; is against any provision of the Constitution of India;
and tends to incite people to crime, cause disorder or violence or breach of law or glorifies violence
or obscenity in any way. Sub-Rule (3) further provides that no advertisement shall be permitted the
objects whereof are wholly or mainly of religious or political nature; advertisements must not be
directed towards any religious or political end. It is in this background, we now propose to pass the
following order:
Every registered, National and state, political party and every contesting candidate proposing to
issue advertisement on television channel and / or cable network will have to apply to the Election
Commission/Designated Officer [as designated by the Election Commission] not later than three
days prior to the date of the proposed commencement of the telecast of such advertisement. In case
of any other person or unregistered political parties, they will have to apply not later than seven
days prior to the date of the telecast. Such application shall be accompanied by two copies of the
proposed advertisement in electronic form along with a duly attested transcript thereof. In case of
first phase of elections, the application shall be disposed of within two days of its receipt and until
decision thereon is taken, Supreme Court order dated 2nd April 2004, shall apply. In case of
subsequent phase of election, the application shall be disposed of within three days of its receipt and

until the decision thereon is taken, Supreme Court order dated 2nd April 2004, shall apply. While
disposing of such applications, it will be open to the Election Commission/ Designated Officer to
direct deletion/modification of any part of the advertisement.
The application for certification shall contain following details:
(a) The cost of production of advertisement;
(b) The approximate cost of proposed telecast of such advertisement on a television channel or
cable network with the breakup of number of insertions and rate proposed to be charged for each
such insertion;
(c) It shall also contain a statement whether the advertisement inserted is of for benefit of the
prospects of the election of a candidate (s) / parties;
(d) If the advertisement is issued by any person other than a political party or a candidate, that
person shall state on oath that it is not for the benefit of the political party or a candidate and that
the said advertisement has not been sponsored or commissioned or paid for by any political party or
a candidate; and
(e) A statement that all the payments shall be made by way of cheque or demand draft.
We find that Section 2 (a) of the Act defines authorized officer, within his local limits of
jurisdiction, as (a) District Magistrate; (b) sub-divisional magistrate; or (c) or commissioner of
Police. Similarly, Section 28-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 provides that the
Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, presiding officer, Polling Officer and any other
Officer appointed under this part and any police officer designated for the time being by the State
Government, for the conduct of any election shall be deemed to be on deputation to the Election
Commission for the period commencing on and from the date of the notification calling for such
election and ending with the date of declaration of the results of such election and accordingly,
officer shall during that period, be subject to the control, superintendence and discipline of the
Election commission.
Since it is not physically possible for the Election Commission to have a pre- censorship of all the
advertisements on various cable networks and television channels, it has become necessary to
authorize the Election commission to delegate its powers in this behalf to the respective District
Magistrates of all the States or Union Territories, not below the rank of a Sub-divisional magistrate
or a member of the State Provincial Civil Service. This may be done by a general order issued by
the Election commission. These officers shall act under the control; It will be open to the Election
Commission to requisition such staff as may be necessary for monitoring the telecast of such
advertisements. Where the Election Commission is satisfied that there is a violation of this order or
any provisions of the Act, it will issue an order to the violator to forthwith stop such violations and

it will also be open to direct seizure of the equipments. Every order shall be promptly complied with
by the person (s) on whom such order is served.
The funds to meet the cost of monitoring the advertisements should be made available to the
Election Commission by the Union of India. Adequate publicity of this order shall be given by the
Union of India on the electronic media and through print media.
THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK
Good journalism flourishes where society respects and enforces the rule of law. International
standards supply guarantees of free expression. But these standards also typically acknowledge
certain legitimate grounds for the state's restriction of free expression. 7 The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, pronounces in
Article 19 that:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek,receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 29 then qualifies this right as:
"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are
determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and
freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general
welfare in a democratic society ."8
The right to free expression often goes loggerheads with other competing interests. Sometimes there
is no legal remedy for types of journalistic misconduct that can disappoint readers and viewers. A
courtroom is often not the best place to resolve disputes about balance, fairness, and accuracy and
there is always the risk that harsh judicial remedies, even those imposed when the underlying case
involves journalistic misconduct, will inhibit the future free and open publication of controversial
views. In such a scenario self-regulatory mechanisms offer a valuable alternative. 9 Most
associations of journalists, and many individual news organizations, have adopted codes of ethics.
Terms vary. Some codes are binding, and violation of a provision can lead to dismissal by an

employer or expulsion from a professional journalism society. But most codes of ethics, instead,
offer voluntary guidelines to help journalists make morally and professionally sound decisions.
Codes thus encourage greater accountability to readers and viewers. A good example is the Code of
Ethics for the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) 10 , the largest voluntary association of U.S.
news reporters and editors. Its code encourages journalists to abide by four core principles:
Seek truth and report it: Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting
and interpreting information.
Minimize harm: Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings
deserving of respect.
Act independently: Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's
right to know
Be accountable: Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.
By its own terms, the SPJ code is a voluntary guide to ethical behavior. It states:"The code is
intended not as a set of 'rules' but as a guide for ethical decision-making. [10] Similarly the Press
Council of India, an autonomous body was set up under the Press Council Act, 1978. The Press
Council of India has developed norms of journalistic conduct that cover the principles and ethics
regarding journalism. The Press Council of India has also laid down guidelines on reporting of
specific issues of public and national importance. In 1996, it drew up a set of guidelines that are
particularly applicable to financial journalism. The Press Council of India has also issued guidelines
on reporting of elections.11 'Mint'12 has laid down a code of journalistic conduct for guiding its
journalists in so much of details that these can be expanded in scope to be followed by the entire
media to safeguard and uphold the values of journalism in the country.
Journalists have to be honest fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting
information; ensuring accuracy, objectivity, balance and fairness. A Journalist should be free of any
obligations, whether political or corporate. Speaking of corporations, there is no denying that
Journalism and reporting like most other professions need significant capital inputs and sound
business sense to survive. But, this is a profession where the stakes are much higher because it is a

10

11

12

profession which has the power to create opinions and to shape a nation's present and its future.
Journalists must maintain dignity in expression and be sensitive while reporting on critical issues.
Paid news: Pernicious dimension of media
Media bias has always been a detrimental phenomenon affecting all forms of media that plagues
society due to financial selfishness and vested interests of the journalists and the corporate houses
controlling the strings of various sections of media. But in the recent years this bias is falling in the
vicious trap of corruption whereby the news has started to have a price tag and advertorials are
passed as news to unsuspecting readers and viewers. It has become pervasive, structured and highly
organized and in the process, is undermining democracy in India. Media has moral responsibility to
keep the news objective, fair and neutral. A clear distinction between information and opinion from
advertisements that are paid for by corporate entities, governments, organizations or individuals has
to be maintained at all times. The reader should be able to distinguish between news reports and
advertisements/advertorials and the boundary between the two should never blur.
But recently the paid news is becoming a deep-seated ailment which has become "organized" and is
not restricted to only journalists, managers and owners of media companies but also involve
advertising agencies and public relations firms. Owners and editors of media companies ideally
should erect a firewall between journalists or content creators/producers, on the one hand, and
buyers and sellers of advertising space, on the other but in some newspapers, magazines and
television channels, this wall has too many convenient orifices which leads to the most common
problem of making an attempt to manipulate public debate through the purchase of favorable
editorial space and the purchase of advertising space .Owners of media organizations compel
themselves to give favorable information about certain advertisers and block unfavorable
information against them due to their financial relationships, including share-holdings, with them.
An outgoing chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India, in his farewell speech,
referred to the existence of the 'anchor investor'. Therefore, this problem, in a different sense,
though it cannot be termed as 'paid news', also existed in the sphere of business journalism. Such
trends have been discernible in sections of the Indian media for some years now in spite of press
council of India having drawn a set of guidelines in 1996 which are particularly applicable to
financial journalists on the behest of the regulator of the country's capital markets, the Securities
and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).Disclosure of private treaties between media companies and
other corporate entities need to be mandatory to safeguard the interests of investors.
"This practice(paid news) has started in media after India adopted free-economy policy. Corporates
and media came closer and marketing managers became stronger than the editor of a media
establishment. ..Media (the only hope for the common man) is supposed to be advocating for the

deprived sections of society. But media itself has become an integral part of consumerism and
corporate system.13 "The explosive growth in the media in the country had highlighted the fact that
the Fourth Estate is the only one among the pillars of democracy that has an identifiable commercial
and explicitly for-profit persona. While the primary professional duty of media organizations is to
their readership to keep them informed and appraised with news, views and ideas, the commercial
logic brings in a new set of stakeholders in the form of the shareholders of these companies." [23]
The paid news has proliferated more due to diminution of the role and the status of editors in media
organizations and the reduced freedom of journalists under the Working Journalists Act. Senior
journalists prefer to work with their employers under fixed term contracts which erode their
protection otherwise accorded to them under the provisions of the Act. "Until the 1970s and the
1980s, many editors would not brook any "interference" from the management of the company they
would be employed by - the number of such editors started dwindling as more and more senior
journalists started acceding to every whim of their managers and employers instead of their editors.
With managers playing a more influential role in the selection and presentation of news, it was not
surprising that the importance of the news started getting determined by the revenues that would be
generated for the media company." 14 The journalist faces an ethical dilemma which begins with the
inherent conflict between the individual's role as a journalist providing independent information to
the public and his or her employer's quest for profit. The poor wages of journalists especially those
who work in non-urban areas also force them to double up as advertising agents working on
commissions to earn their livelihood.
The paid news acquires a completely new complexity of staggering proportion with the
corporatization of media houses and large media houses not only own print media but also own
electronic media and radio waves. These media houses offer packages for the projection of certain
individuals in all the forms of media that they own and control. This distorts parliamentary
democracy in multiple ways: (a) (the) media ceases to be objective and, therefore, distorts public
perception; (b) it distorts the electoral political choices of the people by providing undue advantage
to those candidates/political parties who are able to afford these packages, (c) it manipulates
democracy, negating it completely by denying or by not providing equal access to those who cannot

13

14

afford to indulge in such malpractices thereby breaching the provisions of the Constitution of India,
and (d) it demeans the idea and essence of journalism itself. 15
"Paid news phenomenon represents a "fatal combination" of three "Ms", namely, the media, money
and mafia that has subverted free and fair elections. He said that earlier, politicians used to hire
musclemen with huge amounts of money and train them in booth rigging. Now candidates are
training media pens instead of mafia guns to 'rig' the minds of people with constant opinion
bombarding. 16 "The new aspect of this phenomenon of "paid news"as seen in parliament elections
in 2009 is that there was widespread participation by political parties in this process. The integration
and assimilation of leading political parties and corporate public relations bodies in this racket is
also unique to the elections of 2009." 17 The Election Commission noted during the election process
that "the more disturbing phenomenon recently emerging and which is causing serious concern to
the commission is the latest complaint to the Commission that some of the newspapers have even
offered packages at hefty sums, offering three types of services - one, projecting the image of a
political party or a candidate in a positive manner; two, giving negative publicity to the rival party
or candidate. The rates of such packages vary, depending upon the standing and circulation of the
newspaper in the area covered by the constituency.The regional media councils have been rising to
address the problem by repeatedly urging the journalists to desist from the temptation of "We
strongly believe that the practice of putting out advertising as news is a grave journalistic
malpractice. Moreover the trend threatens the foundation of journalism by eroding public faith in
the credibility and impartiality of news reporting. It also vitiated the poll process and prevented a
fair election, since richer candidates who could pay for their publicity had a clear advantage."

18

prominent journalist took a poke shot on vernacular press, "The vernacular media may be feeling
cocky, having pulled themselves out of physical poverty under their own steam, but they have yet to

15

16

17

18

learn how to deal firmly and decisively with another kind of poverty - that of the professional,
ethical kind" 19 .
The society has woken up to the media malpractices and the reflection is seen in the films and
documentaries. Even in a survey conducted by the Readers' Digest in March 2010, called the Trust
Survey, 750 Indians were asked to rank the short-listed individuals belonging to different
professions. Journalists were ranked 30 out of the 40 professionals listed and were placed next only
to barbers and bus drivers. 20 Edelman, an independent public relations firm, in its 2010 Trust
Barometer Survey (conducted in 22 countries worldwide, including India and six other countries in
the Asia-Pacific region) stated that the Indian media has been losing its credibility and trust among
the people. The study, which sampled 1,575 people in the 25-64 age group and 200 opinion leaders
in India, noticed a sharp drop in trust over the past two years in television news in India. However,
newspapers are ranked higher than other media in terms of credible news with people trusting
newspapers more than any other medium: 38 per cent of the Indians polled trusted radio and
television, while 40 per cent trusted news in newspapers. Over the past two years, trust in television
news dropped sharply from 61 per cent to 36 per cent, that of business magazines has gone down
from 72 per cent to 47 per cent, and that of newspapers has gone down from 61 per cent to 40 per
cent. Trust in the media in India as a whole declined by 7 per cent (from 65 per cent in 2009 to 58
per cent in 2010).
THE US FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES ACT
In the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, California was the first state to pass a comprehensive
political reform package. Proposition 9, known today as The Political Reform Act, was passed as a
ballot measure by California voters in the June 1974 election. The initiative was championed by a
tripartite group consisting of then-Secretary of State Jerry Brown, the Peoples Lobby, and
Common Cause. By including provisions regulating campaign finance, lobbying activity and
conflicts of interest, Proposition 9 represented the most significant state-level response to the
culture of corruption that was believed to be so pervasive in the pre-Watergate years.
Proposition 9 (The Act)
In 1974, during the fallout from Watergate, a coalition of political reformers presented a statewide
ballot initiative that they claimed would put an end to corruption in politics. These reform groups
19

20

sought to end corruption by reducing the amount of money spent in elections and by eliminating
secret or anonymous contributions. With the advent of the new law, the campaign activities and the
personal financial affairs of state and local officials were subjected to greater public scrutiny than at
any other time in Californias history. And the initiative directed that the law be vigorously enforced
by the newly created Fair Political Practices Commission. Proposition 9 had six main provisions, it:
1 Imposed mandatory spending limits on candidates for statewide offices and statewide ballot
measure committees. However, in the landmark case, Buckley v. Valeo21, the United States
Supreme Court held that mandatory spending limits were unconstitutional.
2 Imposed restrictions on lobbyists. It required lobbyists to register with the state and to file reports
disclosing their activity expenses. It also imposed a $10 gift limit on lobbyists and
prohibited lobbyists from making contributions.
3

Imposed strict conflict of interest laws and required state and local agencies to establish
conflict of interest codes, requiring agency officials who routinely participate in decisions to
publicly disclose personal financial information.

Banned anonymous contributions of $100 or more and established extensive campaign

disclosure laws. The underlying theory behind campaign disclosure is that an informed
electorate will vote against the candidate or proposal having financial alliances adverse to
the public interest. In addition, candidates are less likely to accept a contribution from a
source with whom they do not want to be identified.

Enacted laws to curtail incumbent advantage (e.g., a prohibition on sending "mass mailings"
at public expense). Many of these laws have been tailored significantly by regulatory or
court action.

Created an independent centralized authority to secure compliance with the Act. Prior to the
creation of the FPPC, campaign disclosure laws were rarely enforced.

In addition to creating the FPPC, Proposition 9 established strict auditing of campaign statements
by the Franchise Tax Board. Prior to the Act, no systematic method existed to determine whether a
candidate or committee reported all contributions and expenditures.
Legislative Activity in the 1980's
Often in cooperation with the FPPC, the Legislature added various provisions to the original version
of the Act over the years:
1

In 1977, the Legislature required candidates and committees to disclose their identities on
campaign literature. This law was later challenged in the California Supreme Court and

21 (1976) 424 U.S. 1

upheld.22 A subsequent challenge based on the United States Supreme Court case McIntyre
v. Ohio Elections Commission23, also failed.24
2 In 1980, the Legislature imposed restrictions on state employees who leave state service to join
the private sector. These restrictions are commonly referred to as the "permanent ban" and
prohibit state employees who work on specified proceedings such as procurements and
lawsuits from being paid to switch sides after leaving state employment.
3

In 1982, the Legislature passed an important contribution limitation applicable to members

of boards and commissions. Under section 84308, an appointed official may not accept a
contribution of $250 or more from an applicant until three months after his or her agencys
decision on a matter is final. If the official has accepted a campaign contribution of $250 or
more from an applicant within the preceding 12 months, the official is disqualified from
participating in the decision. Before this new law was added to the Act, it was longstanding
practice for appointed officials to solicit contributions from applicants and then vote on a
decision affecting the applicant.

In 1982, the Legislature provided funding for the Enforcement Division to enforce the Act at
the local level.

In 1985, the Legislature required sponsored committees to include the name of their sponsor
on all political mailings sent by the committees.

In 1987, after extensive hearings on the matter by the FPPC, the Legislature imposed stricter
identification and notification requirements on slate mailer organizations. The new law
required disclaimers to be placed on every slate mailer.

Propositions 68 and 73
Voters simultaneously passed two political reform initiatives in 1988. Proposition 68, a measure
sponsored by Common Cause, provided contribution limits with public financing for legislative
election campaigns. Proposition 73, an initiative sponsored by members of the Legislature, was a
more comprehensive campaign finance reform measure that did not include public financing. The
electorate approved both ballot measures, with Proposition 73 receiving the most votes.

22 Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 851.

23 (1995) 514 U.S. 334, 336

24 Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688.

The California Supreme Court subsequently ruled that when two competing comprehensive reform
schemes are enacted at the same time, it will not sort through the provisions to determine which
parts are compatible after the election. 25 Only the ballot measure with the most votes will prevail--in
this case, Proposition 73.
The contribution limits and the inter-candidate transfer ban in Proposition 73 were later invalidated
in federal court on the basis that the limits were applied on a fiscal year basis, which favored
incumbents.26 Some provisions of Proposition 73 remain in effect (although many have been
repealed by Proposition 34, discussed later).
Proposition 73 also prohibits public financing of elections. However, this prohibition does not
prevent a charter city from establishing a public financing scheme. 27 Finally, Proposition 73 requires
candidates to have one campaign bank account for each election.
Proposition 112 - Government Ethics Laws
In the 1980s, the FBI began a three-year sting operation to uncover corruption in the California
Legislature. The FBI investigation resulted in the conviction of five legislators. The FBI probe
began when federal agents formed two fictitious seafood companies. During the investigation, the
FBI gave $90,000 in campaign contributions and honoraria to various legislators and the Legislature
approved two bills designed to give the sham companies business advantages, which were later
vetoed by the Governor. Immediately following the investigation, a Los Angeles Times poll
revealed that 53% of the voters surveyed thought that taking bribes was a common practice in
Sacramento.
In June 1990, the Legislature placed Proposition 112 on the ballot. Proposition 112 was a
constitutional amendment that directed the Legislature to pass new ethics laws. The new laws
banned honoraria, imposed a gift limit of $250 (which is adjusted for inflation) and restricted travel
payments on state elected officers and officials who file financial disclosure statements (later
extended to all state and local candidates for office, local elected officers and local officials who file
Statements of Economic Interests). Proposition 112 also strengthened laws prohibiting a candidates
personal use of campaign funds.
25 Taxpayers to Limit Campaign Spending v. Fair Political Practices Comm. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 744.

26 Service Employees International Union v. Fair Political Practices Comm. (9th Cir. 1992) 955 F.2d
1312.

27 Johnson v. Bradley (1992) 4 Cal.4th 389

One-Year "Revolving Door"

In 1990, the Legislature passed the Milton Marks Postgovernmental Employment Restrictions Act,
which prohibits state elected officers and specified state agency officers and employees from being
paid to represent another person before their former state agency for one year after leaving that
agency. In 2005, a similar law was added applying to certain local officers.
Online Disclosure Act
In 1997, the Legislature passed the Online Disclosure Act. This and subsequent amendments to the
Act requires specified candidates and committees to file their campaign finance reports
electronically beginning in 2000. This information is available on the Internet. The following
entities that spend or receive $25,000 or more are subject to the Online Disclosure Act: candidates
for state elective office, committees supporting or opposing statewide ballot measures, general
purpose committees and slate mailer organizations. The Online Disclosure Act also applies to state
lobbyists, lobbying firms and lobbyist employers when they make certain expenditures totaling
$2,500 or more in a calendar quarter.
Proposition 208
In 1997, the voters passed Proposition 208, which again placed limits on campaign contributions to
candidates but also added voluntary spending limits and imposed other restrictions aimed at
supporting the contribution limits scheme. Before the measure was fully implemented, the federal
district court issued a preliminary injunction against its enforcement 28. The court's preliminary
injunction was upheld on appeal but the case was remanded for further proceedings by the trial
court. Before the trial court could issue its ruling, the bulk of Proposition 208 was repealed by
Proposition 34.
Press Council of Indias Guidelines on Election Reporting-1996
i) General Election is a very important feature of our democracy and it is imperative that the media
transmits to the electorate fair and objective reports of the election campaign by the contesting
parties. Freedom of the Press depends to a large measure on the Press itself behaving with a sense
of responsibility. It is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the media adheres to this principle of fair
and objective reporting of the election campaign.
The Press Council has, therefore, formulated the following guidelines to the media for observance
during elections:
28 California Prolife Council Political Action Committee v. Scully (E.D. Cal. 1998) 989 F.Supp. 1282

1. It will be the duty of the Press to give objective reports about elections and the candidates. The
newspapers are not expected to indulge in unhealthy election campaigns, exaggerated reports about
any candidate/party or incident during the elections. In practice, two or three closely contesting
candidates attract all the media attention. While reporting on the actual campaign, a newspaper may
not leave out any important point raised by a candidate and make an attack on his or her opponent.
2. Election campaign along communal or caste lines is banned under the election rules. Hence, the
Press should eschew reports which tend to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between people on
the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language.
3. The Press should refrain from publishing false or critical statements in regard to the personal
character and conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any
candidate or his candidature, to prejudice the prospects of that candidate in the elections. The Press
shall not publish unverified allegations against any candidate/party.
4. The Press shall not accept any kind of inducement, financial or otherwise, to project a
candidate/party. It shall not accept hospitality or other facilities offered to them by or on behalf of
any candidate/party.
5.The Press is not expected to indulge in canvassing of a particular candidate/party. If it does, it
shall allow the right of reply to the other candidate/party.
6. The Press shall not accept/publish any advertisement at the cost of public exchequer regarding
achievements of a party/ government in power.
7.

The

Press

shall

observe

all

the

directions/orders/instructions

of

the

Election

Commission/Returning Officers or Chief Electoral Officer issued from time to time.

ii) Guidelines on 'Pre-poll' and 'Exit-polls' Survey-1996
The Press Council of India having considered the question of desirability or otherwise of
publication of findings of pre-poll surveys and the purpose served by them, is of the

view that the newspapers should not allow their forum to be used for distortions and manipulations
of the elections and should not allow themselves to be exploited by the interested parties.
The Press Council, therefore, advises that in view of the crucial position occupied by the electoral
process in a representative democracy like ours, the newspapers should be on guard against their
precious forum being used for distortions and manipulations of the elections. This has become
necessary to emphasize today since the print media is sought to be increasingly exploited by the
interested individuals and groups to misguide and mislead the unwary voters by subtle and not so
subtle propaganda on casteist, religious and ethnic basis as well as by the use of sophisticated
means like the alleged pre-poll surveys. While the communal and seditious propaganda is not

difficult to detect in many cases, the interested use of the pre-poll survey, sometimes deliberately
planted, is not so easy to uncover. The Press Council, therefore, suggests that whenever the
newspapers publish pre-poll surveys, they should take care to preface them conspicuously by
indicating the institutions which have carried such surveys, the individuals and organisations which
have commissioned the surveys, the size and nature of sample selected, the method of selection of
the sample for the findings and the possible margin of error in the findings.
2. Further in the event of staggered poll dates, the media is seen to carry exit-poll surveys of the
polls already held. This is likely to influence the voters where the polling is yet to commence. With
a view to ensure that the electoral process is kept pure and the voters' minds are not influenced by
any external factors, it is necessary that the media does not publish the exit-poll surveys till the last
poll is held.
3. The Press Council, therefore, requests the Press to abide by the following guideline in respect of
the exit polls:
Guideline:
No newspaper shall publish exit-poll surveys, however, genuine they may be, till the last of the
polls is over.