Britain and Canada are examples of countries where parliamentary candidates disclose campaign expenses. In Britain, the return must show that expenses have been contained with the permitted limit. In Canada, the expenses return is both for this purpose, and for the purpose of determining the amount of money to reimburse the candidate.
Britain
The candidate's election agent must draw up the return of expenses according to a set format. The candidate must sign and swear by it, and submit it within thirty-five days of the declaration of the election result. Failure to submit the return on time means that a successful candidate cannot in the meantime sit or vote in the House of Commons. If he does so while his return is overdue, he is liable to daily fines. If a candidate exceeds the limit, he may seek relief from the courts, if an accidental miscalculation has been made in good faith, or if there has been a minor, inadvertent breach. But if a candidate is convicted of illegal or corrupt practice (in other words, a serious offence, which may result from overspending), he stands to lose his seat in the House of Commons.
The heavy penalties underscore the fact that returns of election expenses must be taken seriously. However, in keeping with the British approach to the regulation of election campaigns, the rules about what does or does not constitute a declarable election expense are unclear, unless they have already been the subject of a past court case.
For example, the time when the election campaign starts is not determined, as in some other countries, such as Canada and Australia, by some well-defined event, such as the dissolution of Parliament, or the issue of the election writ. For the purposes of calculating expenses, the campaign starts whenever candidates start to promote themselves. On the other hand, they may promote their party's policies even though they thereby make themselves known to the local voters in the process. This subtle distinction emerged from a decision in a case dating back to 1910 (the East Dorset case). The verdict in this case means that a candidate may address political meetings provided:
- he does so under the banner of his local party association
- he calls himself the 'Prospective Parliamentary Candidate' rather than the 'Parliamentary Candidate' and
- he does not distribute his photograph as part on any political literature
As far as expenses incurred on polling day and on the preceding days are concerned, legal uncertainties stretch to the question of whether an election agent is obliged to enter as expenses the notional commercial cost of rooms in the homes of volunteers used as committee rooms. This, too, has been the subject of several court cases.
Such niceties result from the 'adversarial' approach, which is basic to electoral administration in Britain. (see Approaches to Regulating Parties and Candidates) It is left to one of the losing candidates or his party organization to challenge possible contraventions of the law in the courts. The regulatory authorities will not take the initiative. Nor will they normally offer advisory opinions as to what is or is not within the law.
Canada
The system for candidates' expense returns is not entirely different in Canada, and its British origins are clear. However, there are some significant contrasts between the Canadian and British rules. These result from the fact that Canada, like Australia, relies to a large extent on a bureaucratic system of electoral administration. There are well-staffed and highly developed offices, both at the federal and provincial levels, devoted specifically to this task. Where there is room for doubt, candidates can usually (though not always) rely on advisory opinions by the Chief Electoral Officer of the federal office, known as Elections Canada, or his provincial counterparts.
- In contrast to Britain, the Canadian regulations set out the precise time period to which the expense return must relate: candidates' expenses are from the time the writ is issued.
- Apart from information about expenses, the returns must include details of all contributions of more than CAN$ 100.
- There are guidelines from the Chief Electoral Officer about which items count or do not count as election expenses. (However, these guidelines have not avoided all problems concerning the definition of 'election expenses,' as described in another entry, Election Campaigns).
Draft Only
