Examples
In Britain, limitations on permitted spending by individual candidates for election to the House of Commons. (There are no similar limits on the expenditures of national party organizations, provided that they do not mention the names of individual candidates.)
In the United States, limitations on the spending total of presidential candidates who accept public subsidies. (Candidates may spend without limit provided that they forego any entitlement to public funding.)
In Canada, limitations on permitted campaign spending by national party organizations.
Administrative Implications
In order to ensure that expenditures fall within the permitted total, it is necessary to create a strict administrative structure whereby all expenditures must be authorized in advance by the candidate, or by a specially appointed official (known, in Britain, as the candidate's 'agent'). It is also necessary to create rules concerning the submission of campaign accounts--including the time within which accounts must be submitted, and the form of the accounts.
Other administrative issues are:
- the penalties imposed for exceeding the limits and
- the means by which the rules are enforced
(1) Penalties. In Britain, parliamentary candidates who break the rules regarding permitted expenditures are (if they have been elected) subject to forfeiting their parliamentary seats.
(2) Enforcement mechanisms. In Britain, it is the responsibility of political opponents to draw up a legal case, which is then contested in the law courts. In some other countries (such as the United States, Canada and Australia), the task of enforcing laws relating to political funding, and to other aspects of electoral administration, is the responsibility of a special administrative body. In the United States, this organization is called the Federal Election Commission. Where such an organization is created, it is of course important to ensure that it is politically neutral and professionally competent. It is necessary to ensure that it has sufficient funds to guarantee that its staff can operate without feeling under threat.
Two common complaints about the British system of enforcement are:
- the expense of bringing legal charges, and
- the temptation for the main parties to collude with each other in avoiding charges of breaking the law.
Comments
The long-established limits in Britain on individual candidates' spending on local parliamentary campaigns appear to have worked better than the newer regulations in the United States and Canada which have imposed ceilings on spending at the national level.
The limits on parliamentary candidates' spending were introduced in Britain as far back as 1883. The restrictions apply only to expenditures during the three or four week election period. Spending by local party organizations in the period of four or five years between successive general elections is unrestricted. This makes it possible for candidates to evade the intent of the law to some extent. For example, local printers sometimes agree to produce election literature at a low cost, in return for the prospect of more profitable work for the local party organization between elections. Nevertheless, the limits on local spending do have the real effect of severely restricting the ability of candidates to purchase advertisements in newspapers or to give payments to a considerable number of campaign workers (as was the nineteenth century practice). The regulations have succeeded in encouraging local parties to create committees of party members who give their services as volunteers. Thus the restriction on local campaign spending has promoted the growth of local political parties by encouraging participation. The relative success of the legislation stems from the particular conditions of British politics, and from the fact that local and national campaigns are, in practice, largely separate. The main task of the party at the local campaign level is to impress the name of the individual candidate for Member of Parliament on the minds of the voters. It is at the national campaign level that the policies and images of each party are promoted.
Where there is legislation to restrict national level campaign spending, the record has been less successful. The first major problem is that national organizations have succeeded in stretching the limits by placing expenditures in categories exempt from the regulations. Since the limits apply only to a campaign period of a specified length of time, expenditures are attributed wherever possible to the non-campaign period. This is parallel to similar evasions at the local level, though the implications at the national level are more serious.
In addition, campaign activities are sub-contracted to organizations that are legally independent of the party. The techniques involved in this exercise are detailed in Alexander's volumes on the funding of each recent presidential campaign in the United States. In 1988, the campaigns of George Bush and Michael Dukakis each cost twice as much as the permitted limit83. This was because American law permits anyone to conduct a supposedly 'independent' campaign for or against a candidate
as long as these independent expenditures are made without consultation or collaboration with the candidates or their campaigns.
Alexander and Bauer draw the following conclusion:
expenditure limits are illusory in a pluralistic system with numerous openings for disbursements ... when freedom of speech and association are guaranteed, restricting money at any given point in the campaign process results in new channels being carved through which monied individuals and groups can bring their influence to bear on campaigns and officeholders.
84.
The attempt to restrict campaign expenditures of national party organizations creates a second and related problem. If the spending ceiling applies solely to parties, it will still be possible for non-party organizations to campaign without limit. This creates the paradox that a religious group or a 'single-issue' lobby may spend unlimited sums of money in attacking a party that, for instance, favours abortion. Yet the party will be restricted in the money it may spend in countering the attack. If the rules on campaigning are to be fair, it will be necessary to extend their reach to all types of organization. It was this problem, stemming from the system of limitation of national party campaign spending, that obliged Canada to establish a Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing in 1990 see Groupes d'intérêts : tiers.
Countries with Spending Limits for Candidates/Parties
Examples as of 1995:
- Brazil
- Canada
- Israel
- Italy
Countries with Limits for Candidates but not Parties
Examples as of 1995:
- France
- Great Britain
- India
- Ireland
- Japan
- Malaysia
- Mexico
- Taiwan
- United States
- Ukraine
Countries with Limits for Parties but not Candidates
Example as of 1995:
Countries with no Spending Limits
Examples as of 1995:
- Australia
- Czech Republic
- Germany
- Greece
- The Netherlands
- Sweden
- Turkey
See also Réglementation et contrôle du financement des campagnes.
