Expenditure limits are one device intended to control inequalities between parties and between candidates, to prevent rises in the costs of politics, and restrict the scope for undue influence and corruption.
Spending limits apply most often only to certain phases and levels of political activity. They are applied most often to the campaign expenses of candidates in legislative elections.
To specify which activities are subject to expenditure limits, it is, therefore, convenient to distinguish between:
- expenditures by local branches of the party and by their candidate (or, in multi-member districts, their candidates) for legislative office and expenditures by national party organisations (including the party headquarters, and party organisations in the national legislature).
- It is also necessary to distinguish between expenditures specifically and directly related to the election campaign and spending on the routine organisation and research activities of parties in the long periods of 'electoral peacetime'.
These two distinctions lead to the following four categories:
- Local election expenditures.
- National election expenditures.
- Local 'routine' (non-election) expenditures.
- National 'routine' (non-election) expenditures.
Since expenditure limits do not normally apply to routine spending by political parties, they will be discussed more fully in a later section, which deals specifically with the regulation of election campaigns. This entry will discuss some of the problems involved in determining what items are to fall within the scope of regulations about spending limits.
Campaign Versus Non-Campaign Spending
The fact that expenditure limits apply to election expenses but not to routine expenses raises the question of how a distinction can be made between these categories. In practice, this raises seemingly insoluble difficulties. These are discussed in later entries, see Election Campaigns. The definitions of the 'campaign' period used in different countries are also reviewed later, see Regulating Advertising.
Non-Monetary Assistance
A further problem concerns the treatment of non-monetary assistance. This problem raises itself regardless of the distinction between campaign and non-campaign periods or between national and local expenditures.
As far as some types of benefits-in-kind are concerned, they could hardly be omitted from the calculation of expenses without destroying the very purpose of expenditure limits. Campaign money is used to buy goods and services - paper for printing leaflets; rental of campaign offices; other office costs such as telephone, postage, lighting, heating, the purchase or hire of equipment; transport costs; and so forth. Yet, supporters can provide all these as gifts-in-kind. Therefore, it is essential to include the value of such gifts.
However, there are some gifts-in-kind that it is arguably inappropriate and impractical to include. In particular, a difficulty arises about how volunteer labour should be treated under the regulations concerning campaign spending limits. If the commercial price of such help were included, the result would be to prevent citizens from participating in election campaigns. Also, it would be virtually impossible to cost and to police a system that required candidates or their agents to record and assess the commercial value of all voluntary help. Nevertheless the exclusion of the value of voluntary work admittedly provides a significant loophole.
Draft Only
