In this context, the term 'third parties' does not refer to political parties. It is a technical term for other types of organisation that may wish to participate in the electoral process. These are typically pressure groups concerned with a single moral or material issue. Examples of such contributions to political campaigns are those by pro-animal lobby groups to the British Labour Party and by many Political Action Committees in the United States. 'Third parties' is a term that includes but is wider than the business and trade union organisations whose role as political funders is discussed in another entry, see Funding by Institutions.
Such organisations participate in the electoral process in a number of ways:
(a) by making financial contributions to the party or candidate most closely representing their views.
(b) by financing advertisements or other campaign activities intended to benefit a party or candidate, or
(c) to finance advertisements or other campaign activities intended to harm a party or candidate.
The activities of bodies other than political parties are, of course, a legitimate aspect of any pluralist system. Nevertheless, they raise problems for the control of political spending.
First, where donations go directly from pressure groups into the coffers of a political party, there is arguably an increased risk of influence-buying. Whereas individual donors may frequently vote for the party which represents their opinions, an organised pressure group is more likely to try to use its funding power to influence the policies of their political beneficiaries and to obtain commitments in exchange for their payments.
Second, where pressure groups conduct an independent political campaign, other problems arise.
(a) If candidates for office or political parties are subject to a legally-imposed limit on the total they are permitted to spend but there are no limits on 'independent' spending by pressure groups, the effect is to weaken political parties as institutions and to encourage the development of non-party organisations. This may be an undesirable side-effect.
(b) Independent spending by pressure groups may be seen as a loophole that subverts the purpose of limits on spending by parties and candidates.
(c) Where independent spending by advocates of different candidates is uneven, the objectives of regulations that aim to secure a level playing field between those candidates is undermined.
Third Party Contributions: Fairness Versus Free Speech
Where political payments from pressure groups are made into the coffers of political parties or into the campaign accounts of candidates for public office, they are amenable to the regulations that apply to such accounts. It is where pressure groups fund activities that are legally distinct from those of parties and candidates that an insoluble problem arises concerning their regulation. Quite simply, regulators are faced with a choice between the objective of fairness and that of freedom of speech.
Independent political spending by pressure groups provides a loophole that may make meaningless any laws about spending limits and other forms of fairness between candidates and parties. The only way to close this loophole is to subject pressure groups to regulations and restrictions as tight as those for candidates and parties. But the consequences of doing this are far-reaching. The larger the number of organisations and activities that are restricted by law, the greater the limits on freedom of expression. If, for example, candidates are divided on policies relating to laws concerning moral issues (such as laws on abortion), then restriction on campaign activities by pressure groups implies that Churches will be required to abstain from campaign activities for or against a particular candidate or a political party.
Beyond the question of regulation of 'third party' political activities, there arises also the question of the role of the press. If newspapers are heavily partisan - as is often the case - they might easily affect the electoral outcome. Some commentators on the political Left have argued that newspapers are normally a tool of capitalists. They are likely to support capitalist parties. Therefore, fairness requires that the press should be regulated during elections in the same way as television channels. A set amount of space should be assigned to the competing parties according to rules similar to those for TV and radio. The objection to this is that control of the content of newspapers is not compatible with basic democratic freedoms (see Guiding Principles).
Draft Only
