Public Funding of Political Parties

The Power Report suggests that each voter should tick a box on their ballot paper to allocate £3 pounds of state money (our taxes) to the party of their choice. Neil Harding comments that if they don't want the state to give a party any money, they don't tick any box. This is totally up to the individual. The system which will be set up to allow public financing for politician parties has several problems, Obviously only state recognised political parties would be eligible for public monies, this must be the case because the parties will have to be listed on the ballot paper, and some form of payment structure would need to be organised. The recognition process could be used to remove certain political organisations or place certain conditions on political organisations. It is an easy step for the establishment to place conditions on political activity during the registration process, it would then be possible to not allow recognition for a particular political group which did not meet those conditions, and another small step to then only allow legally recognised parties to stand for election. What those conditions might be can only be speculated on at this stage, but some insight can be gained from looking at how other countries tackle the question. An area that I have not looked at to deeply, but it is obvious that such a system is open to manipulation by any party which might find itself in power at any given time. This could also have a very damaging affect on the abilities to stand, in one policy local groups, such as the “Independent Kidderminster Hospital & Health Concern” Where Dr. Richard Taylor unseated the sitting Labour member. It was certainly not in the interest of the government of the day to allow such a challenge. As an example only, within the EU only those parties which can command support in several states who also conform to other conditions are eligible for public funding. This has the affect of removing all nationally based organisations from the funding process. UKIP for instance would not meet the criteria on two fronts; one it is nationally based, and two it does not agree with the ethos of the EU. This has the affect of placing the power to regulate political parties in the hands of the present establishment. This is not giving power to local communities it is allowing central state control, of not only political financing, but could also be extended to general political activity. Another example: in the North West Referendum for an elected assembly, both the Yes and the No camps were eligible for state funding of £100,000. The Electorial Commission chose to donate public monies to a newly formed Tory backed London based group, ignoring an already existing and operational non affiliated local “NO” group, which had been professionally and actively campaigning on the issue for several years. The EC decision had some consequences, firstly as soon as the announcement was made it allowed the Labour backed Yes group, to begin a campaign against the London Tories on the ground that this group was Tory backed and not local, both points being thought important in a regional referendum, perhaps this was no more than a side effect of the decision, but even that is open to analysis and is questionable. The other consequence was that as soon as the EC made its announcement all other groups were sidelined, in the media, the London based group became the “official voice of the No camp”, this was taken to extremes, The original group from that point found it difficult to obtain media coverage, was not invited to many open debates, and was ejected from some, finally the original group were not even allowed entrance to the count. As an amusing aside: The original group which had been sidelined by the EC decision had such a high profile, that even the office of the Deputy Prime Minister contacted them to arrange for transfer of the funds. So any system of public funding would require state control; there would have to be legal registration of political parties, there would have to be a legal framework for funding regulations. This would have the effect of institutionalising parties. In assigning certain functions to the parties, the state then takes responsibility for seeing that they fulfill their responsibilities, thus more areas for state control of political activity. In Canada for instance the accountability requirements, are that a candidate must open a separate bank account exclusively designated for campaign expenses and, when the candidacy is declared, make a deposit, half of which is refunded when the campaign expense report is delivered. These accountability requirements enable electoral authorities to examine funding sources and compliance with campaign spending limits Failure to turn in a report in a timely fashion will land the candidate in court. Violators risk being barred from running for office in the future. So in Canada if you violate rules on state funding they can bar you from standing, do we really want such a situation to develop in this country. We would have requirements for limits on campaign funding, for annual reports of party revenues and spending, and for reports on every campaign in which a party competes. These reports would have to list funding sources and spending levels in order to demonstrate whether or not limits have been exceeded. There would have to be a control system, which could be fines or suspension of public funding, or revocation of the party's legal registration. In the USA current laws also hinder third parties because unlike the main parties “Democrats and Republicans”, which receive their public funds before an election, the minor parties get their money afterwards and only if they receive at least 5 percent of the total national vote. "The major parties are able to use the law to prevent competition, and restrict the scope of conflict," This entrenches the organized interests that support the major parties, because other groups are denied the opportunity to mobilize resources in opposition. So public funding means state control of political activity, and state control means the present incumbents set the rules. Looking at the Power Report it can be seen that it suggests, at 19. Donations from individuals to parties should be capped at £10,000, and organisational donations capped at £100 per member, subject to full democratic scrutiny within the organisation. If this was adopted it would assist the funding for the labour Party because much of its funding comes from organisations trade unions etc. but it would work against the Conservative party because much of its funding comes from private donations. Facing the arguments for vested interests, I would have thought that trade unions have traditionally had a vested interest in there being a Labour party in power. So if we have a labour party in power, it might well accept the recommendation of the Power Report, if we have a Conservative party in power it might well reject that recommendation. It is the party in power which can control who will, and who will not, receive public funding, it would be the party in power which will set the rules for political parties being allowed public funding, and could well set the rules for legal recognition of political parties. I see that this would be serious menace to democracy. Other than that, I do not see any reason why we should be forced to support, either a system of government or a political party whos philosophy and or policies we individually fundamentally disagree. How many would willingly wish to support a far right wing Nazi party for instance. Most of us might well agree, that such a party should be banned from participating in the democratic process. But once we embark along that road where does it end, perhaps we should ban the SNP, because it wants to a break up the UK, and wants independence for Scotland; I am sure we can all find our own particular bogymen and find reasons for not allowing them to participate in the political process. But to do so has the potential of literally disenfranchising sections of the community, yet at the same time forcing them to contribute to other political parties. Returning briefly to Neil Harding’s point “if they don't want the state to give a party any money, they don't tick any box. This is totally up to the individual” of course the funding will not come directly from the pocket of the individual, but from the central purse, to which we all contribute, the individual would be spending our money on their preference, the fact that we also have the power to donate state money to our choice is neither here nor there, we would all be forced to financially support political ideals with which we disagree. Perhaps the most important objection I have to the public financing of political parties is that it is the political parties who set the rules and the amounts of that funding. For them it is licence to ignore the wishes of the voters, and to literally write their own pay cheque for doing so. Public funding contributes to a separation of the political parties from the people, and would help to make them immune from any constraints on their policies. For as long as a political party must convince their supporters to reach into their pockets, we have some control on their capabilities to campaign for power.