The cost implications of laws and rules relating to political parties, candidates, and elections are similar, but not identical to the administrative implications that have been outlined, see Administrative Implications. Broadly speaking, state intervention often involves heavy costs.
Particularly high costs are associated with electoral registration, and with the public financing of political parties and candidates' election campaigns. The costs of administering some types of regulations, such as those involving the disclosure of political donations, may also be relatively high.
Arguably, the 'bureaucratic' approach to administration (which involves the creation of special central election commissions) is generally more costly than the 'adversarial' system (where it is generally left to candidates and parties to bring legal actions against opponents), see Approaches to Regulating Parties and Candidates.
High Cost of Public Financing of Parties and Candidates
Levels of public financing of parties and candidates vary, see Costs and Public Responses. In Russia, public funding exists, but on an insignificant scale. By contrast, public financing has become the most important single source of political money in a number of countries, and, as a fair generalization, it is very costly. To give an extreme example, the overall amount spent in Germany on a whole variety of different forms of public financing is in the region of DM 1 billion a year. (This is higher than the total cited in Costs and Public Responses, which includes only limited categories of public funding.) Moreover, roughly the same amount is spent in election years as in non-election years. During the cycle between one federal election and the next, public financing of political activities of parties and candidates amounts to a total in the region of DM 4 billion. This is equivalent to some DM 70 (US$ 40) per voter.
When an official committee set up in Britain in the 1970s went to Sweden to investigate that country's system of public financing of parties, some members later reported that 'one distinguished Swedish politician told us, in what was intended to be a piece of helpful advice: 'Start small - you can always increase it later.'' This story encapsulates the suspicion of opponents of public financing of parties and candidates that it is an inherently expensive business. Nevertheless, such financing has become normal, see Direct.
Low Cost Regulations
Sometimes it is much cheaper to provide benefits in kind to candidates and parties than to make financial payments to them. The prime example of this is the regulation that exists in many countries permitting parties and candidates access to free broadcasting time on television and radio. Often the broadcasting networks are obliged to provide this facility as a public service. Indirectly, it is the broadcasting organizations, rather than the taxpayers, who must meet the costs of this broadcasting time or, at any rate, must forego the freedom and the benefits they would have received by using such time for their normal programmes.
Cost Implications of Electoral Management and Subsidy in Australia
The following statistics indicate the relative costs of different administrative items incurred in 1992-93 for the Parliamentary Elections by the Australian Electoral Commission. Figures are given in thousands of Australian dollars.
| Salaries |
20 828 |
| Administrative Expenses |
7 007 |
| Property Operating Expenses |
7 594 |
| Electoral Roll Review |
6 454 |
| Public Funding of Political Parties |
14 162 |
Total Expenditures from Appropriations 56,045
Source: Library of Congress, Law Library, Report for Congress: Campaign Financing of National Elections in Selected Foreign Countries. Washington: July 1995, LL95-4,95-1354, p. 31.
Draft Only
