The election law for any democracy should address the issue of funding of political parties and
candidates. Limits should be set on the level of expenditure they can make during the campaign
period, and there should be an annual monitoring process on donations they receive to aid their
campaigning. Failing to set limits leads to distortions in the process by allowing the parties with
greater resources to gain advantage through spending more for publicity and awareness.
Inevitably, the absence of limits on expenditures diverts energy from the purpose of the election--developing policies for the consideration of the electorate--and may involve parties and
candidates in changes of policy to meet the demand for funds.
The registration of political parties and, in the run-up to the election, candidates can assist with
the process of regulating expenditures, and this is often made the responsibility of the election
management body (EMB). Generally speaking, political party registration occurs only once,
when the party leader presents the party's credentials and evidence of support to the national
election body or the government ministry responsible for such matters. Upon acceptance (and
there should be appeal processes in place should there be rejection), the political party is entitled
to the same benefits and rights as other registered parties. Depending on the legislation in place,
these benefits and rights may include financial support from the state via the national election
body or the appropriate ministry. In some countries, political parties are left to their own
devices in relation to attracting funds. In developing democracies, opportunities for fundraising
may not exist; thus, in order to secure a level playing field, the state may make donations either
on an equitable basis or on the basis of support demonstrated to the national election body by
each of the parties.
In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, there is at present no registration of political
parties and no direct state funding. However, it is easy to forget that in the U.K. and other
countries, political parties receive indirect contributions from the state. These contributions take
the form of free broadcasting opportunities, free mail to all members of the electorate, free use
of certain buildings for meetings and free copies of the voters list. These indirect contributions
notwithstanding, parties must receive donations to survive, and political contributions must be
monitored, particularly at election time.
There was much controversy in the U.K. over this particular matter at the end of 1997.
Immediately following a government decision not to support a European ban on tobacco
advertising, it was revealed that the Labour Party had received a substantial donation--in excess
of $1.5 million--from a Formula One racing executive. The connections with tobacco
advertising and Formula One racing are well known, and there were allegations of 'sleaze,'
Parliamentary questions, and much critical coverage in the press, which eventually resulted in
the Labour Party returning the money. A recognised campaign funding procedure established in
the election law with appropriate checks and balances would have avoided this situation. It is
likely that the new government in the U.K. will consider the introduction of political party
registration and campaign funding legislation in order to avoid a repeat of this embarrassing
episode.
If some form of state funding is accepted as being necessary and desirable in order to avoid
repetition of this embarrassing episode, then it can take a variety of forms, including the
following:
- free access to the television and radio for political party broadcasts
- free access to the print media for advertisements and articles by party leaders or senior
political figures
- free use of the postal service to distribute election material to voters
- use of rooms, transport and other state resources
- direct transfer of state funds to political parties
The method of distributing the direct or indirect state funding needs to be clearly established. It
may be that all registered parties should be entitled to an equitable share of the resources
available. Another method of calculating the level of state funding could be for the party to
demonstrate its support either through membership numbers, number of signatures supporting its
candidates, or through previous election results.
In developing democracies, where the opportunity to register and play a part in the democratic
process for the first time may be attractive to individuals and minor political groupings, there
could be dozens competing for a state election handout. It is critical in such situations to weigh
the importance of establishing a level playing field against the possible abuse of state funding by
parties or candidates with no real support among the electorate. In Brazil, new parties can
request provisional registration on easier terms than definitive registration requires, allowing
them an opportunity to convey their message to voters throughout the country in an effort both to
win votes and to gain the support necessary for definitive registration.
In the United States, there is a commission to oversee campaign finance (see below). In the
U.K., spending limits are set at the candidate level as specified in the election law.
Theoretically, in the U.K., setting a limit on the amount of money each candidate may spend
does create the level playing field so desirable in the democratic process. There is an
acknowledgment, however, that perhaps not everything is disclosed in the candidates' accounts,
particularly at Parliamentary by-elections. A report of the Hansard Society in 1991 states that,
'There has undoubtably been some creative accounting, particularly at by-elections, but few
gross breaches at local or national level.' The central spending by political parties in the U.K.
has no limits, and political parties mount major advertising campaigns, funded centrally through
their private funds, that benefit their individual candidates throughout the country. The bigger
the party, the more money it can attract through various means. This results in a playing field
that is no longer level, leaving the smaller parties with an uphill battle and playing against the
wind for the duration of the game.
In the U.S., the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory body having
the responsibility of administering and enforcing campaign finance law at the federal level. In
the U.S., there are separate systems for financing federal elections and elections to state, county,
city, and other nonfederal offices. Federal elections are elections of the president, the Senate,
and the House of Representatives. The FEC only has jurisdiction over these federal elections.
The FEC was established in 1974 following serious financial irregularities and abuses during the
presidential election campaign of 1972. At the same time, the law was amended to set limits on
contributions by individuals, political parties, and political action committees. The FEC's role is
to enforce the election finance law and administer the public funding programme. In the U.S.,
candidates must disclose the names of individuals making contributions in excess of $200. The
figure is $100 in Canada. Contributions are prohibited from labour organisations, foreign
nationals, and federal government contractors.
In countries where there is a national election body, it is sensible to allocate the funding
arrangements to this central body. Political parties will be required to register centrally, and
candidates either nationally or regionally. In such a system, the national election body has the
opportunity to establish the level of support for each political group and, therefore, the level of
any state funding. The reporting of funding contributions should be an ongoing process, and
information should be made public prior to the election.
The allocation of broadcasting time and the equal access to rooms, public meeting venues, and
rallies could also be coordinated centrally. Importantly, the annual audited accounts of the
political parties should be deposited with the national election body, as should the return of their
expenses shortly after an election.
Scrutiny of the returns and accounts should be a function of the national election body.
Investigation of any complaints or allegations of fraud, abuse, or other irregularities should also
be part of its duties. A permanent national election body, through its finance division, would
have direct responsibility for these functions, and as such the state would not need to make any
separate arrangements for the establishment of a body like the FEC. It follows, therefore, that
there would be no need for any additional costs associated with the monitoring of financial
issues at election time, a matter of importance in any democracy.
