30 ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA JUDGMENT free to express a political preference and criticise policies. State regulation of the broadcast media is implemented through legislative acts, including certain electoral laws. 93. While the broadcast media are generally required to be objective in their reporting at election time, the print media are under no such requirement, being free to express a political allegiance. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) Existence of an interference and its scope 94. The Court notes that the applicant organisation was fined for committing the administrative offence that was defined as a violation of the “procedure” applicable to media work during one part of an election period, namely during the month preceding election day (see paragraph 38 above). This violation concerned the failure to indicate the name of the political party or the candidate to the State Duma who had commissioned two publications in the newspaper, with or without paying a fee. This requirement became incumbent on the editorial board of the newspaper (the applicant organisation) as the content of the impugned publications contained “campaigning material”. The publications were classified as “campaigning” because they were considered to predominantly contain information about one candidate in combination with negative comments. 95. It follows that the “interference” in the present case arose from the classification of the material published by the applicant organisation as “campaigning material”; this was the main element underlying the imposition of the fine. Therefore, the present case relates to the domestic distinction between “information” and “campaigning” in so far as this distinction affects the activities of the print media such as the applicant organisation during the “campaigning” period of the elections, and the statutory requirement for an editorial board to indicate the sponsorship of a publication with possible administrative offence liability in default. 96. It is uncontested that the applicant organisation’s freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention was interfered with by the domestic courts’ decisions imposing a fine on the applicant organisation. For its part, the Court considers that there was an “interference”. Indeed, although the applicant organisation was not the author of the contested articles, it participated in their dissemination by publishing and distributing them. The Court reiterates in this respect that publishers, irrespective of whether they associate themselves with the content of publications, play a full part in the exercise of freedom of expression by providing authors with a medium (see Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148/00, § 22, ECHR 2004-IV; and Andrushko v. Russia, no. 4260/04, § 42, 14 October 2010). Having regard to the scope of the “interference” and the arguments before it, the Court considers that the