The democratic countries must courageously show a willingness to apply the principles on which their internal system is based to the global sphere
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes:
NavigationOur writersOur Authors around the Web
|
 |
A/B - State & corporate fundingOptions A&B
Oh joy - more recipes for corruption. Am I really to believe that the majority of contributors to this debate favour corruption? If they do not support corruption how is it that corporate and unregulated private donations feature so often in the options? Have we asked for personal interest statements from all participants. Are we prepared to reach a consensus that corruption should be allowed to continue? Thumbs down to both A and B. Would te team like to go back to the drawing board and try again please. {Ed. No-one is asking for unregulated doinations. Please see note i). Peter Emerson.}
Submitted on Tue, 2008-02-26 23:20
corporations should not be
corporations should not be allowed to sponsor parties. funding parties solely on the basis of seats gained will make it impossible for new parties to have a voice and lead to entrenchment of whatever already exists.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-02-28 22:54
Consolidating power
A and B tend to consolidate the power of those who have it already. (There may be good reasons for doing this, but I would have to be persuaded). Both suggest a combination of state, corporate and individual funding. This is not a bad thing in itself. While all have interests to pursue, undue financial influence might be avoided by using a combination of grants, capping and means-testing to equalise the per candidate total. (This might discourage corporate and individual donations, so the government could end up paying more, but that is a separate issue). However, neither A nor B aims at an equal outcome. Both target funding towards those least in need, and both deliberately create per candidate inequality. Existing parties receive direct assistance to keep their share of the vote, thereby damaging the interests of others in the race. Perhaps this is offset by the current restraints - I do not have details of those – but if so, the scheme is self-contradictory. If restraints were sufficient to enable fair representation of small parties etc during the election itself, then large parties would necessarily have their large government grants left over.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-02-29 14:56
Questions
Presumably, the "not" in the third bullet points in A/B is a mistake? Activities will be limited, but only to the current extent, whatever we know or imagine them to be? It would be helpful, and indeed necessary, to have them set out if we are to decide in a position of equal knowledge -see Mary Taylor above, ) In relation to B, first bullet point, would this funding be paid centrally, as in A? In relation to both, does this refer only to matching centrally-raised funding only or extend to constituency-raised funding as well? How does the premiss in iv) apply, if at all. to these proposals? I note that capping is not in issue, but to be assumed without any knowledge of at what level it is set -i). Presumably, you are envisaging treating unincorporated associations as incorporated for this purpose? (Otherwise, a donation by one from assets belonging to the members would have to count towards the presumably annual limit for each individual member, with arbitrary results? ) Presumably, again, you envisage avoidance measures to prevent, say. Lord Ashcroft continuing to donate at his current levels through X thousand shell companies? Are you envisaging individual and corporate donations being capped at the same level? {Ed. We do not think the "not" you refer to in A/B is a mistake. Option B, first bullet, yes, as stated in the summary. On capping of funds, please see our note i). But I don't think anyone would assume that individual donations, if allowed, would be capped at the same level as corporate ones, if allowed. Peter Emerson.}
Submitted on Fri, 2008-02-29 18:06
Union funding
This is a well-established part of the UK system. I think that having only individual (register elector) contributions makes very good sense. Due to the existing system, i think there would have to be a substantial period of adjustment allowed. Another way out of the problem would be to allow corporate entities to nominate electors who sign up for their contribution.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-03-01 20:53
No to A
As other contributors, I find this a continuation of the 'status quo' which is what we are trying to move away from. It allows no room for smaller or new parties to make progress. All spoils would go to the most successful at the last election. It also gives too much power to the parties' central organisation. Under our antiquated, unreformed system this means that they would spend it mostly in marginal constituencies and ignore others who would feel even more alienated from the process.
Submitted on Sat, 2008-03-01 22:40
Corporate politics
The whole point of democracy is, I thought, empowering the people. (Its been a while since I graduated, this may have changed) Any democratic system that condones the direct involvement in, and influence over, that system to be weilded by transnational (ie not nationally accountable) corporations is inherently deeply flawed to the point of operating in total contradiction to its purported aims.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-03-02 11:22
i withdraw my support of L
i am totally opposed to both state funding and individual funding. all income should be derived from membership fees only which should be capped to prevent a few individuals trying to get around the rules.according to wikipedia the tories have 290,000 members, labour 200,000 (tho' another site suggested this had fallen to 150,000) and the libdems 70,000.multiplying this by their membership fees they have incomes of:tories: £7,250,000labour: at least £1,800,000 (150k x min.fee of £12)libdems: at least £700,000 (70k x min.fee of £10)this would mean no-one could spend more than £700k/yr though i would have no objection to lowering this even further, the libdems were simply a convenient example. i can see the 2 bigger parties objecting to even lower limits however as it reduces their chances of "spinning" us into submission.the question is, why do they need to spend money "getting their message across" at all? all they need is enough to set up a website with their policies clearly displayed which would cost them just a few hundred pounds a year.as for the excess income they receive, they could either spend it on research (but it would have to be monitored to ensure they weren't using that to influence voters' opinions) or reduced by reducing membership fees or even given to charity :) perhaps if we all join forces we can convince jon bright to put in an option N to limit funding to membership fees only?
Submitted on Sun, 2008-03-02 20:46
A and B
In short, linking the state funding to the number of MPs will favour the parties in power, rather than stimulate pluralism, and will explicitly penalise small/new parties. There are a lot of comments about corruption - all donations going into publicly accountable bank accounts, overseen by the electoral commission - it sounds good, but what happens if/when parties are found with unofficial/private bank accounts? In reality, this questions arises in all systems that are to be monitored publicly - the answer should be the same for every proposed system.
Submitted on Sun, 2008-03-02 22:38
A and B
State funding is a very bad idea. If ordinary citizens are not prepared to contribute to party funds freely they should not be compelled to do so through taxation. Party funding should remain the province of private contributions where the ultimate donor is known at all times. Criminal sanctions should apply to those who seek to decieve party funding oversight authorities of the true identity of donors.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-03-03 08:45
membership funding and campaign advertising
The problem with elected representative-based funding is that it excludes outliers and close-runs at the polls. It hides the political capital of the support won for that vote, and if funds are chanelled by way of elected reps only then the battle for money and power is consolidated even more tersley -possibly at the expense of campaign issues as incentives for monetary greed. Dispersion of funding opens a panoply of possibilities for candidates, and limiting it to one or another form may hamper the distribution of interests that rely on effective management in the political arena (individuals, businesses, bulwark of civil services). Independent regulation is essential as the keystone to working through these debates. Membership fees and limiting advertising campaigns pose another set of issues. As most voters are not registered members of official parties, what kind of resources are necessary to garner support to pay for a better and bigger campaign? What are the limitations in going this approach? Secondly, by limiting voter access to specific types of advertising this has the effect of cuting off entire groups that would normally be comfortable using that medium regularly.Does this discriminate one group over another just because they don't read newspapers but watch TV, or are in a rural town with no internet access? Perhaps standard setting in campaigns (such as banning smear campaigns) is required, and not necessarily censoring the media.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-04 10:33
|
|
|
This thread is for debate on options A and B:
A.
representatives to match funds raised by those parties and paid
centrally.
B.