In the UK, although political parties and MPs do receive some public
funding, the majority of their funding comes from private donations,
whether it be from an individual, organisation or business. This is
standard practice, an accepted norm in the political world, but which
is in my opinion, inherently unhealthy for democracy and opens the
door to dishonesty and corruption.
As it stands, donations are an essential part of any political party
campaign, allowing them to get their message across to the public, as
well as financing the day to day running of their party. Party
campaign expenditures, among other things, include: transport,
advertising, broadcasts, market research, party manifestos, and
canvassing. None of this comes cheap, and if a party wants to be
successful it is important that they are as visible to the public as
their rivals, if not more so. Considering the amounts of monies that
are involved, it would on the face of it seem like a good idea to
allow private donations, saving tax payers millions of pounds in any
given year. But when you dig a little deeper you soon find some
worrying drawbacks to the current system of party funding.
Donations are not in any way supposed to influence or affect a
politician's decision making when concerning policy. But how can we
ever be sure of this. If for example, a politician or party receives
regular or large donations from big business leaders, who's own
wealth and the wealth of the companies they represent are directly or
indirectly effected by polices which are passed through parliament,
there is a huge conflict of interest. It creates an “I'll scratch
your back if you'll scratch my back” culture which compromises the
integrity of both politicians and business leaders alike. Anyone who
has an interest in politics and/or economics will probably tell you
that politicians are increasingly at the mercy of big business.
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the United States, where the
system appears to be less democratic than in the UK. In America it is
usually the party who receives the most dollars who goes on to win
the election, therefore placing even more pressure on politicians to
do what is necessary to secure big donations. Of course there are
many other reasons as to why democracy in the US is suffering, one
being politicians having business interests of their own, but to
discuss them here would be getting a little off the subject.
In the UK, the Conservatives have for a long time received large
funding from people connected with the world of big business and
finance, where the majority of the Labour Party's funding comes from the unions. I'm sure that both parties often make choices that are
unpopular with their donors, but the I have no doubt that many
politicians make decisions with their benefactor's interests niggling
away at the back of their minds, well aware that losing these big
financial contributions could have a detrimental effect on whichever
party they represent. The ongoing Leveson inquiry, which among other
things is examining the relationship between the media and
politicians, has shown just how cosy and inappropriate the “I'll
scratch your back if you'll scratch my back” relationship can be.
Some politicians, who are understandably fearful of bad and
unflattering press, have be socially involved with influential
members of the tabloid press, including former editor of The Sun,
Rebekah Brooks, and the Chairman and CEO of News Corporation, Rupert
Murdoch. The Leveson inquiry has exposed the dangers of such
relationships. One example unearthed by the inquiry was of a text
message regarding News Corporation's takeover bid of BSkyB. This was
sent by Conservative MP Jeremy Hunt to Deputy Chief Operating Officer
of News Corporation and son of Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch. The
text congratulated him on “European clearance” for the takeover
bid and went on to say “just Ofcom to go!”. Ofcom being the UK
regulator and competition authority on communication industries.
Hours after this text, Prime Minister David Cameron gave Jeremy Hunt
responsibility for overseeing the takeover bid. Considering the
magnitude of such a takeover and the effect it might have had on the
media, and even the effect it might have had on politics with the
possibility of skewed and biased reporting, putting Mr Hunt in charge
was clearly a mistake. Cutting out any temptation and reward for
politicians trying to please the media or their financial benefactor
would make for a cleaner and better functioning democracy.
So what are the alternatives?
Well, caps on the amount that contributors can donate is one idea
that might help to stem the unhealthy relationship between
politicians and donors. The smaller a donation is from one source,
the less important that one source becomes, therefore discouraging
the need for an inappropriate relationship, and possibly even
eliminating the need for a relationship altogether. Although this
system would be an improvement, depending on how high the cap is set,
some might argue that as long as there are private donations
involved, corruption and immoral behaviour will continue.
The other option is to totally ban private donations, using tax
payer's money to fund the running of political parties. Much
deliberation would be needed before implementing a system like this.
Which parties would receive funding and how much would they be
allocated. And what about the smaller grass roots parties; would they
receive public funding at all.
The amount of public money that would be needed to fund a system like
this might initially be seen as unacceptable, particularly in times
of recession. But, the amounts need not match that of current private
donations. In fact, they could be considerably less, forcing parties
to concentrate more on policy and less on style. The drain on the
public pot would be minimum. It gets a little more complicated when
deciding which parties receive the funding and what happens to the
parties who don't qualify. Maybe the answer to that is to fund the
bigger, more popular parties, but allow smaller parties to receive
private donations up to a capped amount.
With the right planning and a small amount (in the big scheme of
things) of public money, a new and fairer political party funding
system could be introduced. This would encourage a more honest and
vibrant democracy that would benefit us all. The only losers would be
those unscrupulous individuals and organisations who put their own
interests first, to the detriment of society.
Completely agree with 99% of this, especially this bit " But, the amounts need not match that of current private donations. In fact, they could be considerably less, forcing parties to concentrate more on policy and less on style."
ReplyDeleteI'd prefer to see every candidate in every election get the same funding rather than big parties getting more than smaller parties or independents though, as that might help the big parties maintain their dominance, which isn't good for democracy in my opinion. I know there are some unpleasant and even potentially dangerous parties like the BNP, but unless unemployment is allowed to go even higher i doubt they'll get far anyway - wherever they've got local councillors elected they usually don't get re-elected because they do nothing for the people who elected them except the same ranting about "ethnics" and "immigrants" they did before they got elected.
I think you're right, it would be great to see some smaller grass roots parties coming through, which equal funding to all candidates would encourage.
ReplyDeleteNew Statesman article on state funding for political parties:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2012/03/time-has-come-state-funding-political-parties