One powerful sanction that can
be imposed on a political party, candidate or other electoral participant is
the withholding of a public benefit. The loss of public subsidy (e.g., matching funds or free media
broadcasts) may have more impact than a monetary penalty. And since the
political finance regulator (PFR) often disburses and has primary jurisdiction
over the administration of the public subsidy, this type of enforcement
mechanism may be relatively easy to administer.
Public financing is intended
to offer candidates, especially challengers, sufficient resources to run a
viable campaign without dependence on big donors or spending excessive time fundraising.
The provision of public subsidies is a popular political finance approach. According
to one source,[1]
over 79 percent of countries have some or all of the following:
- public funding/subsidies
to political parties and/or candidates;
- tax relief such as tax
deductions or credits for donations to parties or candidates;
- free or subsidized media
broadcasts by political parties and candidates; and/or
- in-kind subsidies (other
than media broadcasts) such as free or reduced postal rates, rent or
printing.
If it is properly structured,
a public financing program may be an effective enforcement technique. First,
eligibility for a public subsidy can be restricted to political parties or
candidates willing to voluntarily meet certain political financing standards,
such as more extensive disclosure or spending limits. In the United States,
for instance, public matching funds for the presidential race are available
only to candidates who pledge to remain within voluntary spending limits. (During
the last two presidential campaigns, 2008 and 2012, however, at least one of
the major candidates has opted out of the limits and public financing; and, in
addition, funds from supposedly independent groups have played an ever-larger
role.)
Second, the PFR can require
the return of some or all public funds allocated if a party/candidate does not
properly disclose and document how the funds were used, or if the electoral
participant is in violation of the public financing laws generally. Removal of
a public subsidy is a practice sometimes used to sanction offenders in France, Germany,
Poland, Russia, Spain and many Latin American countries.[2]
Public funding may facilitate
enforcement; but the need to regulate it presents new problems:
- The State may wish to
impose higher standards on political parties/candidates receiving public
funds; for instance, the PFR may restrict the use of public funds to core
electoral campaigning activities, or it may require more detailed
documentation for expenditures. Higher standards for those accepting
public funds creates a two-tier enforcement system, with different
requirements and possibly different sanctions applied to publicly funded
and privately funded electoral participants.
- Which parties or
candidates should receive public financing? How should public subsidies be
allocated among them in an equitable manner? These questions have no easy
answers. There may be several options for dividing public financing or
subsidies between electoral participants, with a different argument to
support each one.[3]
[1] IFES, “Enforcing Political Finance Laws …” op. cit.
( 2005), p. 6, Table
1
[2] Transparency International, Global Corruption
Report 2004, p. 54
[3] IFES, “Enforcing Political Finance Laws …” op. cit.
( 2005), p. 21
