UPSC » Daily News Analysis ‘Regulating the Digital Campaign Ecosystem: Gaps and Challenges’ : 29 December

Daily News Analysis ‘Regulating the Digital Campaign Ecosystem: Gaps and Challenges’ : 29 December

The Election Commission’s recent directives for the Bihar Assembly elections have highlighted the struggle of existing regulations to keep pace with a campaign ecosystem increasingly driven by digital intermediaries and third-party influencers.

India’s election rules currently govern a system that is assumed to run primarily on political parties and candidates.
However, political persuasion has decisively shifted to digital platforms and intermediaries, creating a disjunction with existing laws.
The Election Commission’s press note on October 14 mandated pre-certification of political advertisements by the Media Certification and Monitoring Committee (MCMC).
It also reiterated the requirement under Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for parties to disclose social media expenditure.

The current regulations remain focused on parties and candidates, ignoring the third-party actors that mediate electoral outreach.
A subsequent notification on October 21 restricted political advertisements in print media on polling day and the preceding day.
This restriction applies to a narrow pre-poll window and is confined to print, failing to address digital platforms where campaigns are most active.
The regulatory imagination exposes a gap regarding stakeholders (influencers/firms) and time, as digital influence peaks well before polling.

An analysis of the Bihar Assembly election using Meta’s Ads Library reveals that digital campaigning is dominated by non-party actors.
Out of 55 entities spending over ₹1 lakh on digital ads, 32 were third-party or surrogate campaigners, while only 23 were official parties.
In digital elections, the reach of a campaign is shaped as much by who speaks as by the amount of money spent.
Third-party actors not only outspent official candidates but also achieved far greater visibility in terms of impressions.

Despite similar average spending, third-party campaigns generated almost twice the average impressions of official parties.
Official party advertisements remain sharply concentrated among the 13-24 and 25-34 age cohorts.
In contrast, third-party advertisements show a dispersed pattern, effectively reaching older demographics aged 25-44 and beyond.
Third-party advertisers are markedly more cost-efficient, generating 2.60 crore impressions per ₹10 lakh compared to 1.54 crore for parties.

The analysis reveals direct financial entanglements where external entities fund advertisements on official party pages.
For instance, ads on the Janata Dal (United) official page were sponsored by an entity identified as “The Spectrum”.
This creates a risk that expenditure incurred by third parties may not be reflected in the expenditure statements submitted to the EC.
It points to a dual-directional relationship where third parties amplify messaging and directly finance it, blurring the lines of authorized expenditure.

In the Gemini TV case (2004), the Supreme Court held that no entity may publish advertisements benefiting a party without authorization.
However, EC guidelines for the Bihar elections fell short of applying this standard to third-party actors effectively.
Many third-party entities continued campaigning even on the evening of polling and on polling day itself, bypassing restrictions.
Unless regulatory obligations are extended in substance and scope, opaque arrangements will continue to escape scrutiny.

Digital spending is often disclosed ambiguously in expenditure reports, with payments listed under platform names like ‘Facebook’.
This practice hides the specific entities that actually design, fund, or manage the advertisements.
The reverse flow of funding, where third parties pay for ads on official party pages, poses a significant threat to transparency.
Current rules require parties to report what they spend, but not necessarily what others spend on their behalf, leaving influence formally invisible.

Electoral influence now builds over months through sustained digital exposure, making last-minute regulations ineffective.
Rules that activate only on the eve of polling cannot address harms that have already been set in motion weeks in advance.
Conducting elections without a framework attuned to this reality leads to a gradual erosion of trust in fair digital democracy.
The challenge for regulators is no longer just one of recognition, but of resolve to enforce accountability in the digital age.