LESSONS FOR REGULATING CAMPAIGNING ON SOCIAL MEDIA addition to an analysis of the substantive content can aid in distinguishing between political campaigning and protected political speech, and when applied uniformly, could help insulate courts from allegations of political bias. Regulations of online content can also unintentionally regulate content of “non-participants,” or those who are not actively participating in politics as official parties or candidates or other organized groups, highlighting the important role that Courts can be called on to play in protecting free speech and expression. In one such case, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was called on to determine whether the Electoral Commission correctly classified a satirical song and video about the prime minister as electoral advertisements, subject to disclosure and transparency requirements as well as other regulation. 33 Even though the song, which was posted to YouTube, Vimeo, and iTunes during the campaign period, was created by individuals who were unaffiliated with a political party or organization, the Commission advised them that the content would not be exempt under the law (as individual political views published on the internet) because it was available for paid download on iTunes and was a collaboration between two people and therefore could not be considered to be protected “individual political views.” However, the Court held that this classification was incorrect. The Court noted that the content denigrated the prime minister, but that it had clear entertainment value and did not encourage voting implicitly or explicitly, though it may have that effect. In addition, the Court highlighted that the purpose of the provisions at issue was to regulate “parallel campaigners,” or “persons or organizations that are not themselves candidates or parties but commit resources to campaign in cooperation with them.” The Court found that the creators of this content were not parallel campaigners and as such there “was no public interest in knowing who they were since they represented no group or vested interest whose identity voters might want to know when assessing the song and video.” 34 In this decision, the Court also pointed out challenges with the legal definitions and a need for reform, noting particularly that the provisions designed to regulate parallel campaigners and political participants, were so broad that they also had the potential to violate the freedom of expression of non-participants. Finally, the National Electoral Institute (INE) and the Federal Elections Tribunal in Mexico have grappled with social media influencers posting content supporting candidates or political parties in violation of campaign regulations. In 2015, a case was appealed to the Superior Chamber of the Federal Electoral Tribunal of Mexico in which the Green Party of Mexico and various famous people, including athletes, musicians, and actors, were accused of violating the campaign silence period by posting electoral propaganda on Twitter throughout the three days before elections. 35 In its decision, the Tribunal recognized the importance of upholding rights to freedom of expression for citizens, particularly during elections, but also emphasized that these rights are not absolute and that there is a real risk of political parties abusing an individual’s fame to evade campaign restrictions and impact the fairness of an election. While the Tribunal ultimately found that the individuals did not have a close enough connection to the political party to be held liable under the electoral code for a campaign violation, it did find that the political party was indirectly liable for evading the silence period. Even though the Tribunal did not find sufficient evidence of a contract or formal agreement between the party and the famous persons, it held that the fact that the party was the sole beneficiary of 33 Electoral Commission v. Watson (2016 NZCA 512) (Oct. 20, 2016) (New Zealand), available at https://electionjudgments.org/en/entity/u081l8t18p. 34 Id. 35 SUP-REP-16/2016 Y SUP-REP-22/2016 ACUMULADOS (Apr. 20, 2016) (Mexico), available at https://electionjudgments.org/en/entity/jhhfffkqh88. 9