A technique to reduce the cost of campaigning is to prohibit certain costly kinds of expenditure. In the 'arms race' between political parties and between candidates, this is the equivalent of an agreement between nations to ban certain costly types of weapons.
Bribery and 'Treating'
In the nineteenth century, when the number of those qualified to vote in countries such as Britain was still small, election campaigns consisted largely of bribes and entertainment for electors. This proved very costly, particularly when the right to vote was extended and the number of thirsty voters' throats and greedy palms grew too rapidly for the comfort of the politicians and their patrons who had to pay the bills.
In 1832, 850 out of 1,000 voters in the English parliamentary constituency of Stamford were bribed. A candidate was expected to employ an agent - often a local lawyer - to pay innkeepers for refreshments for voters on polling day. Candidates were also expected to find employment for electors by using them as cab drivers, messengers, poll watchers, and clerks. 62
British legislation of 1883 banned some of these activities such as the provision of refreshments or payments to transport voters to the polls. These measures, combined with stricter enforcement of laws against bribing voters helped to reduce campaign costs.
It is significant that certain countries with high campaign costs are those where vote bribery and entertainment for candidates is still reputed to be common - such as Taiwan and Malaysia. Concerning the latter country,
'An article in a Bangkok newspaper, citing what the author calls 'a radical [Malaysian] monthly news magazine,' quotes the magazine as claiming that the then upcoming 1990 elections in Malaysia might be the most expensive one in the country's 33-year history. The news magazine is also quoted as saying that in the villages of Malaysia, a vote would cost from M$20 to M$25. Fence-sitters (undecided voters) could, it said, be wooed with cash, and the UNMO had campaigned on a family-to-family basis, paying out about M$2,000 to M$3,000 per household, or so the article claimed.' 63
Political Advertising
In many countries, the heaviest campaign cost is now advertising. This is especially the case where candidates and political parties are permitted to purchase advertising time on television. A ban on such purchases may thus keep campaign costs in check. In some countries, there is a similar ban on the purchase of space on commercial billboards, see Regulating Advertising.
Draft Only
