party funding Flashcards
2019 election spending
Total spending - £50M
Conservative party £16m
sources of funding
Membership fees
State funding
Donations
problems with donations
‘influence can be bought’
Many big donors want something in return. That means
they can buy influence, a dangerous development in a
democracy.
evidence of buying influence
Unite supported Corbyn’s hard left
position, and threatened to cut donations if Starmer would move the Labour Party to a more centrist position
Peter Cruddas, billionaire and major party donor
(£3.5 million) had to resign in 2012 as Conservative
Party treasurer after the ‘cash for access’ scandal.
In 2020 Johnson appointed him as member of the
House of Lords, despite official advice from the
independent Lords Appointment Commission, who
judged Cruddas would not be suitable as member
of the HoL. Johnson simply ignored the advice.
According to investigation from The
Times, everyone who donates more
than £3 million to the Conservative
Party has become member of the
House of Lords
Conservative Party donors were awarded £1
billion worth of COVID-19 related contracts
(to provide PPE, etc) without those contracts
being put to open tender. Many of them had
no experience at all in healthcare.
Has anything already been done to improve party funding, and
reduce the reliance on donations?
Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000
(PPERA):
Total election spending limit (£30,000 per
constituency)
Ban donations over £500 from non-UK residents
Requirement to declare donations over £5,000
ppera working
20 Conservative MPs
were investigated by
the police for
overspending in the
2015 GE, risking
prison sentences.
None were
sentenced, for lack of
evidence.
is PPERA effective
Yes
It limits spending to
£30,000 per constituency. As a
result spending is not as much
out of control as in the US
No
It still allows unlimited
donations, which may often
result in donors demanding
something in return – buying
influence.
what has been done to limit the effectiveness of ppera
The Elections Act 2022 (apart from requiring an ID to
vote) gave the government more control over the
Electoral Commission that enforces PPERA. The
government can decide not to fund specific activities
of the Electoral Commission, or stop it investigating
specific breaches of PPERA. That commission has
therefore become less independent.
What is the main reason election campaign spending is not as
out of control as it is in the USA?
communications act 2003. Parties cannot buy television advertisement time in the UK,
because of the legal requirement to remain impartial. That is
what most money is spent on in the US.
arguments for state funding - buy influences
Limit the opportunities for corrupt use of donations. It
would make parties less reliant on donations, and reduce the
possibility to ‘buy influence’.
However, there is no guarantee this would
actually reduce donations. The US has
government funding for presidential
candidates, but this has not controlled their
spending
arguments for state funding - level playing field
It would help create a level playing field between the
parties. It would avoid a situation where a party is more
successful than another one representing the same number of
people, simply because it receives more in donations
The Conservative Party received £53 million in 2019, the Green
Party £800,000.
That is 66 times as much, although the Conservatives got only 16
times as many votes, and only have twice the number of
members.
However, the fact that the major parties have a larger budget
than the minor parties simply reflects the fact that they are more
popular, and have a realistic change of being in government
arguments against state funding - tax payers
Taxpayers may object against their money being used to
fund parties. They may oppose the general principle of it,
may consider it not a priority.
The Conservatives
received £50 million
in donations in 2019.
To make an impact,
state funding would
amount to millions
of pounds
However, the total budget of the
government is about £800 billion.
Current party spending at
elections is 0.001% of that, or
about 80p per UK inhabitant per
year. Government support for
political parties would be a
relatively trivial amount.
arguments against state funding - radical parties
People may object against their taxpayer money being used
to fund parties they strongly disagree with.
Until 2017 Short Money was given
to UKIP, which left-wing voters may
object to.
however - Taxpayer money is
used all the time for
things people may
disagree with; people
don’t get to pick and
choose how it is spent
What are the alternatives, to deal with the buying of influence?
Impose limits on individual donations
Make it harder for organisations to donate money
Further spending limits
Evaluate the view that the current system to regulate party
finance in the UK is not fit for purpose
- PPERA does not restrict donations
sufficiently, leading to abuse of powers
e.g. Peter Cruddas appointed to
member of the HoL by Johnson in 2020
after donating £3.5 million
PPERA does require donations to be
declared, so the worst cases of
corruption can be called out in the media
and become scandals
e.g. COVID PPE contracts worth £1 bn
for Conservative party donors
2. PPERA restricts spending strictly
The enforcement of those restrictions is
not always effective
- The Communications Act restricts
spending by banning political advertising
on television
This does not apply to social media
- The UK does not have state funding for
parties for election campaigns, to reduce
dependency on donations, and it should
e.g. Short Money only to hold
government to account
Taxpayers would object to their money
being spent on election campaigns
e.g. Conservatives received £50 million
in donations in 2019, so significant
amount needed to have an impact
