This thread is created for ideas on how much money should be spent on politics.
Our Authors
Paul Rogers on Global security
Li Datong on China from the inside
Fred Halliday on Global politics
Mary Kaldor on Human security
Danielle Archibugi on Cosmopolitan democracy
Demotix: photo partner
The lower the cap on spending, the lower the incentive and requirement to solicit large donations (which if nothing else can give the appearance of corruption.)
People should be free to give what they want and the politicians would have to spend what they are given wisely.
The minimum level of funding a party is entitled to within a state-funded system (my preference) needs to be set sufficiently high so that small parties can thrive alongside big ones.
Under the state-funded system I favour in which individual voters allocate a fixed amount to the party of their choice at election, the question would be: how much should each voter allocation be?
I imagine it would take some trial and error to establish a suitable amount, but two things that I think are important are:
-it should not be so much as to allow "permanent" mobilisation and campaigning (as they have in the US)
-it should be sufficient to allow smaller parties to get their message heard at a national level.
Whilst I sympathise with the sentiment expressed in Guy's argument, I feel that the majoritarian view expressed in it will lead to further concentrations of power, which I think is the exact opposite of what he actually would like to see.
The British system must not follow the same route taken by the Americans. Money should not define a persons ability to rule. The state-funded concept proposed by Guy seems intriguing and could help with greater political participation across the board as well as giving minorities a louder enough voice on the political stage.
I think there is a strong argument that budget capping of this sort constitutes a vote against freedom of speech. If you think of the market, popular products thrive because the public buys them. If the product does not do what it supposed to, or does not deliver value for money, the public buys a different product.
In effect, politics should be like a market - if one party is perceived as having a monopoly, and not delivering, the free market would dictate that people would instead throw their money behind a different party. Those parties therefore that reflect the public will, will in turn enjoy good financial support.
Politics cannot be treated as equivalent to the commercial market. Firstly, I can tell very straightforwardly whether a product I have bought does not work, whereas it is far harder to ascertain whether a politician or party is really failing to 'deliver' on anything other than the most basic issues. Secondly, those who have a lot of money to throw behind a party do not neccessarily share in 'the public will' - in fact their money is designed precisely to disguise a party which serves their private interest in a cloak of rhetoric which convinces the public that it is in their interest. Thirdly, if there were a coherent and discernable 'public will' which would appropriately allocate its resources, then why would there be any need for funding to begin with? Just get everyone to vote, without any campaigning, and we would discover the 'public will'. Except of course this is not the nature of the 'public will', which is formed and shaped by political propoganda, and therefore under a 'free market' by whoever has the most cash.
Freedoms can only be upheld insofar as they do not contravene other freedoms - we have to have institutional parameters on the exercise of freedoms which protect freedom in itself. So the right of freedom to voice your support for a party is limited by the case in which your doing so will undermine the more fundamental right of everyone to have free and equal access to political power. The electoral process must be so framed as to overcome rather than reflect or amplify the inequalities of society.
In America it is evident from previous election campaigns and indeed the one being held that alot of money goes is neccessary for a successful campaign. But that results in only rich people getting into power. And as wealthy companies finace these campaigns then only wealthy people have a direct link to power.
With the recent scandal in the Labour party it is clear that the in the UK like America, it is money that equals power. But we are meant to be living in a democracy yet in reality we live in a society run by the wealthy whose aim is to increase the wealth of the rich.
I am of the firm belief that party funding should be reduced and there should be a limit on both the campaign budget and how much people can donate.
consistent with and continuing from Nico's post 'As much as it takes'
To ensure that taxpayers' money is not wasted, controls need to be in place to ensure that state funding is allocated to genuine political parties, no matter how small, but not to facetious parties.
I believe that there should be a modest cap on the amount that any individual is allowed to give to a party , say £10k per year. the amount that parties have or can spend should be determined by the number of contributors that they can attract.
David makes a good point about the spending cap. However, I would favour setting it lower, perhaps moving it into a range that could be afforded by larger numbers of the electorate. £100 a year? £1,000?
A high cap means that those with large amounts of money to spend will potentially exercise more influence on a given party, leading to the rather unsavoury (but well-known) scenario of money buying influence.
While there is nothing wrong with having a large income, and it may indicate that a person makes an important contribution to the economy and society, should this buy extra sway over the political process? This is an important question. Parties will undboutedly feel indebted to individuals who make large contributions.
Obviously, not the ridiculous ammounts we have now...
I think that parties should be financed by:
1. membership fees paid by members and affilates (by which i mean: the clubs that fund the tories and the unions that contribute to labour)
2. publicly-funding based on votes recieved in each election (this will incentivise parites to contest as many elections as possible, meaning that at a council level most especially, there's more choice for voters).
With the caveat on (2) that people should be able to choose who gets the funding when voting. For instance, I might be a Green supporter tactically voting for the LibDems - but I'd want my £3 or whatever going to the Greens. This issue become less important in elections with an element of proportional representation.
This would also give people a direct incentive to vote - they will be able to see it as a way to raise money for their preferred political party.
No financially bankrupt organisation should be entitled to any public funds. New Labour and the Tories are up to the eye-balls in debt - that is why both parties are begging for the state to step in and bankroll them. Both parties are desperate to hook themselves up to a never-ending life-support system that will save them and their parties, but will do the public no favours whatsoever.
Why should public money be used to bail them out? No political party has the right to exist forever. Politicians should get their money from their members and supporters, if they are incapable of doing this, then tough - they die.
There should be limits set on how much a single business or person can donate to any particular person or party.
Members of parliament, incumbent and prospective should not be allowed to handle the donations. All should be collected by a central body and distributed accouding to the instructions of the donor.
A percentage of donations should be used to widen participation by funding the deposits and campaign materials for prospective candidates from independents and the minor parties to increase choice for the electorate and a more balanced representation of the public. This could be from some form of "donations tax" or the complete removal of donated funds above some arbitrary level from the major parties.
Else you end up with this situation:
In the Scottish Parliament election the party fielded 32 candidates which entitled the BNP to public funding for its campaign and an election broadcast, something which was attacked by far left groups. The BNP got about 1% of the vote and no seats. (Source: WikiPedia)
That is - well funded groups will be able to exploit the system.
In principle, funding should depend on votes received in the pevious election. I know this punishes new parties and rewards the previous winners, but I can't see any other fair or consistent way of working things.
Interesting that everyone so far has assumed that the overall political system remains in place and the question of funding refers only to parties.The question is much broader than that - it's about spending on politics altogether.
I suggest that the question cannot be answered adequately until we know what kind of system is in place. I do not assume a status quo; in fact, it is clear to me that the centralised power structure dominated by one or two parties is unhealthy and undemocratic.
A better alternative would be a federal structure based on real popular sovereignty (as in Switzerland). At the regional/cantonal level, MPs are part-time; their main income has to come from another source.
Funding for 'politics' rather than for parties must include funding for education for democracy, the costs of a genuinely democratic initiative and referendum system, assistance with the cost of publicity for initiatives etc.
I don't see any point in restricting the debate to the question of how to fund what most reasonable people would agree is an undemocratic, unfair and terminally corrupt system - in fact a cartel run by the major political parties for their own vested interests.
The question of political funding could be linked, for example, to the question of a citizen's right to specify how their contribution to the expenses of the state through taxation should be spent. We seem to have forgotten the basic principles of democracy - to the great advantage of the political elites.
{Ed. If we couldn't debate something, without looking at everything, we'd never do anything! This question of funding touches on all sorts of constitutional issues but, as we said in our guidlines, we can't do everything at once. But we could do everything, one thing at a time. Please have another look at thse guidelines on http://www.opendemocracy.net/deborda/guidelines_and_schedule
Peter Emerson.}
I have pondered this question for two days and still find it almost impossible to answer.
The same rules may not apply between elections compared with the situation when an election is called. During elections enough money must be available to ensure good communications with the electorate but not for 'gimmicks' (such as poster campaigns). Who decides what is a gimmick? In any event, who decides anything about apportionment of money in this area? Who guards the guardians at election time? The Queen?! How much money goes to the centre and how much to individual constituencies?
Between elections conditions are obviously different. There is the maintenance of an office, paying staff, dealing with constituents - all legitimate. When does money allocated to parties in normal times spill over into permanent electioneering?
You see my problem. The more I consider this question, the more complex it gets and so the more difficult to answer. It needs more than my little brain or 200 words can manage!!
Is not the amount 'How much?' but the equity of its distribution. What we want to prevent is for the rich to be able to buy elections. Therefore limiting the amounts people can give, banning poster and spin adverts, providing public interest airtime and not just at elections, are what matters.
I think every political party with candidates at a General Election should receive a _small_ amount per vote gained, from public funds. Individual electors entitled to vote should also be able to make _modest_ donations, up to say £200 each a year.
Beyond that, I am reluctant to see large groups or enterprises making significantly larger donations, except by public and democratic decision. We rightly fear the American model, in which candidates are engaged in a permanent campaign. Nor do I believe rich individuals should be able to 'buy' elections and influence with money.
This may seem harsh, but smaller political party can be as bad as bigger ones in wasting money on pointless rhetoric, if they are given the cash. I suspect we would be doing ourselves all a favour if we left that to the political junkies watching the exchanges on the Commons' 'Question Time'. Questions can be mind-bogglingly inane, and answers non-existent.
What we need to encourage is discussion, argument and debate, not media-related "sound-bites". Those are mostly "slogans", reiterated to the point of mindlessness.
It seem to me that these are two entirely seperate questions.
for those who ' serve' the system is already in place albeit not entirely transparent.
For those who ' aspire' to serve this is more complex,
We live in a free & democratic society where indivdual wealth will perhaps determine how much & whether there is desire to fund an indivdual / political party. I think ''asprational'' funding is entirely personal to that aspirant and the people they wish to engage in the overall political debate
Surely the only purpose of funding is to enable citizens to make informed choices about who to vote for.
If that's the case, why not centrally fund a very simple system - a single mail out by post to every address registered with the electoral commission, which would contain a one page manifesto for each political party, organised in order of popularity at the last election. This could contain a link to party websites for further information.
This would be supplemented with a single deliberative event (much like an American caucus) in each constituency, with each prospective MP in attendance and open to any constituent who would like to attend.
This approach allows any party to have a (roughly) equal voice and allows each citizen the choice to become informed in more depth. It could be centrally funded at a tiny overall cost.
We have to get away from marketing politics to everyone - people will just become more and more cynical and/or indoctrinated by those who have enough money to push their political 'brand' in people's faces.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that very little should be spent, and that should come from public funds allocated according to the number of votes secured at previous elections.
How much money is needed to run, for example, a campaign to be an MP? Or rather, how much is currently spent? And on what?
What seems important to me is that candidates should not be able to 'buy' a post. It seems to me that sometimes in the US, the more the candidate spends, the more votes they get. That can't be fair.
Providing funding on the basis of a previous election seems backward rather than forward looking. Is old Labour that same party as New Labour? I would prefer contributions to come only from electors rather than businesses and unions, but this may be too big a change to consider. Perhaps the audited membership numbers should be used to decide the government funding level.I think that basic information about parties should be provided by means of government funding - the existing arrangements are rather poor.
I think that it is a common mistake to assume that financial contributions made to politicians affect their stances on policy. Sure, big business has more money to give than the environmental lobby (although, every good cause seems to have its patron billionaire who feels guilty about having so much money), but it can largely be assumed that a candidate takes money from the many groups and individuals who already support his cause rather than selling out to individuals and groups who will financially support him/her if s/he agrees to change his/her stance on policy. I repeat: donations follow political dispositions, they do not create them.
I think, therefore, that the moral argument against having campaigns be about raising money (that politicians sell themselves to the devil) is invalid, and there will always be an eager source of funding for anyone with a good idea that reflects the wants, needs, and concerns of a good portion of the population.
There are also two major advantages to having fundraising marathons: they provide a monetary means for politicians to make themselves and their policy views visible, and give the electorate a sign of how serious the politician is and how badly s/he wants the office. Surely, a politician who throws him/herself into a campaign will similarly put a lot of effort into their posts once selected?
I think that Paul Carline's comment is absolute genius. In my above comment I have assumed the status quo and I, unfortunately, don't think that a spending cap would solve any problems. In fact, it might make politicians and policy less visible without curbing any potential patronism. A fundamental restructuring of the system might be the best option (though relatively unfeasible in the short-term).
parties should be funded purely by ther membership/subscription fees. donors should not be allowed to influence our politicans just because they have money but neither is there a need for state funding; over the course of a parliament both the labour party and the tories will receive well over £15million pounds in membership fees. how much do they need to set up a website with their manifesto on it? what is it that they spend all this money on? is it on informing us of their policies or is it on manipulating us (supermarket style) into voting for them or, more likely, against the opposition.
parties relying on only their membership fees would have the added benefit of allowing a level playing field with party funding commensurate with their public support.
this is why i created the following petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/partyfunding2/
that comment is a reply to 'money as freedom of speech' above. i think its gone in the wrong place.
In reply to Theo Middleton, I would counter that you need to give some freedom to the amount that people can donate. I'm not saying we go to the extreme of no caps at all (which, as observed, would result in American style system of politics) I am simply saying that political funding cannot be reduced to straightforward matter of "every party getting equal funding" whether that be from the state, or from private sources publicly regulated.
In the first instance, political parties are not and should not be subject to state control - else you have the danger of "the party becoming the state, and the state the party." Parties should remain independent of the state - and that includes funding. People will dance to the tune of whoever pays the bills, therefore parties should not be funded through the state - save perhaps for certain exceptions with regard to elections - things such as a number of broadcasts, free postage for literature and so forth. Similarly, while expenses can be claimed by MPs and so forth, that is because they become state servants upon election - they are no longer solely a party representative. If we agree the state is obliged to help them carry out their functions as representatives, we also accept that some state funding will be unavoidable by way of wages, expenses and so forth - but these are NOT subject to party funding, but parliamentary funding - a different topic.
Which leaves party funding itself. It strikes me that the way forward is to give sufficient scope for VARIABLE individual donations, without giving a few wealthy individuals the power to completely influence the party. And to be fair, the present system isn't that bad - it already has reasonable caps. The problem is transparency, and that can't be determined by regulations, but a determination to police them.
So I stand by my earlier point - there shouldn't be a cap on spending. More a determination to police individual donors.
The question is not precise and thus admits to a range of answers. Assuming that the matter of concern in the context of this experiment is how much money we allow to be spent by any candidate in a political campaign, I have set out most of my pitch in my answer to the first question. The sum each candidate is allowed to spend is determined by the amount of the compulsory political levy nominated to each aspirant candidate by the electorate after candidates have published their personal manifesto using an initial modest, capped grant from the public purse. This sum could be perhaps 15% of the total revenue raised by the political levy with the remaining 85% being used by the electorate as their nomination funding. The size of the levy is for others who have a better gasp of the cost of political campaigning than I have to decide although the guiding principle is that it should be smaller rather than larger. As others have noted transparent and rigorous accounting for spending which is to be limited to predefined admissible costs with crminal penalties for transgression of the rules is an absolute requirement.
I think it is important to consider why seemingly large amounts of money are spent by the mainstream parties. Maybe I am wrong but it is my understanding that party political spending patterns are largely determined by electoral concerns.
Is it not the case that the driving rationale behind party political spending is the disproportionate gains possible from targetted expenditure? We see the impact of this potential gain in the Ashcroft donations to the Conservative Party. Huge funding is being channelled into marginal constituencies in the hope that it can effectively "buy" a limited number of target seats and thus swing the overall result in favour of the Conservatives.
It is the disproportionate gain flowing from this targetted spending that provides the motivation driving parties to raise relatively larg amounts of funds. The reliance of the mainstream parties - even the LibDems are guilty in this respect - on this funding to make gains within the current system means that politics can never be completely free from the taint of corruption.
For me this is just another reason why FPTP should be ditched at the first opportunity. If the voting system did not provide a motive for "dodgy" sources of funding, maybe this would go a long way to cleaning up British politics?
Some kind of overall cap seems to distort the way political parties focus on getting funding: focussing on ensuring they get the big donations.
Instead, a cap per individuals, inflation-linked, and designed to keep us roughly where we are in terms of party incomes.