Summary

Political parties in Estonia seem to be acting in the knowledge that the volume of advertisements carries a critical role in securing an electoral win. The campaigns of the past decade have shown that politicians tend to yield to the temptation of using the electorate’s own money to woo them. So-called political doping, i.e. the use of public funds for the benefit of election campaigns, has been enabled by the tenuous and misplaced regulation of election advertising (and more broadly of political advertising) in Estonia.

The article gives an overview about the international practices employed against the abuse of public funds, focusing mainly on German case law. Addressing Estonian legislation and its practical implementation, the author notes that politicians, in cooperation with advertising and PR agencies, have become more and more inventive in testing the limits of what is acceptable and what is not. The problem is that the concepts of political advertising, election advertising and campaigns, as well as the length of campaigns and the nature of campaign costs, have still not been defined by the legislator. One specific restriction concerning election advertising is the ban on political external advertising in the period of active agitation (approx. 40 days before election day) the practicality of which is questionable due to several reasons. Instead of external advertising, TV and the Internet have become the main advertising channels. Answers are being sought to the question of whether this is an unconstitutional situation or administrative failure.