It is commonly taken for granted that the disclosure of political donations (see Encouraging Internal Party Democracy) is always desirable. Although such disclosure is probably beneficial in most circumstances, it should not be taken for granted that disclosure is always in the public interest.
Arguments for Disclosure
First, the electors are arguably entitled to know as much as possible about the different political parties and candidates for whom they are being asked to vote. Information about each party's financial backers is something that may reasonably influence electoral choices, since it shows something about its likely policies, activities, and political style.
Second, disclosure of political donations makes it easier to detect (and thus to avoid) possible political corruption. If a business magnate makes a large political contribution to the winning party and then gains a favourable governmental contract, it will obviously be easier to raise questions about the possible link between the political donation and the contract if the facts about the donation are in the public domain.
Arguments against Disclosure
The general argument is that disclosure rules are an unjustified infringement on individual privacy. After all, it is now accepted that the old system of voting, where votes were cast in public, inhibited free electoral choice, since electors came under pressure to cast their votes according to the instructions and the interests of their landlords and their bosses. Freedom necessitated a secret ballot.
On the same lines, it may be argued that free participation in politics is liable to be inhibited if donors are forced to declare themselves. Wherever donors to political parties are obliged to reveal their payments, they are forced at the same time to declare their political allegiances. The principles of the secret ballot are negated.
There are three particular circumstances where potential donors may have a legitimate reason to avoid making their political gifts known to the authorities or to the public:
- public officials such as judges, civil servants, members of the armed forces, local government officers, and head teachers are expected to maintain a stance of political neutrality, even though they are entitled to vote and to contribute to political parties. Disclosure requirements are likely to inhibit them from making donations.
- businessmen may feel that they will be discriminated against when it comes to the award of local government contracts if they are known to have supported an unpopular political party or candidate.
- most important, disclosure rules will inhibit contributions to opposition parties and candidates in countries where there is a dominant ruling party, where political violence is rife and where opposition is barely tolerated. In these (all too common) circumstances, citizens will hardly dare to come out in open support of opposition candidates. Disclosure will strongly favour the governing regime.
Comment
A compromise view that has been accepted in a number of countries is that the right to privacy should prevail when political donations are relatively small, but large donations should be disclosed. The threshold above which donations are to be disclosed varies, also see Disclosure Thresholds.
Draft Only
