Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Funds to Political Parties and Candidates

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/

Public funding are funds or resources provided by the State/Government for political parties and/or candidates. Provisions often state that political parties and candidates should have an equitable access to public funds. Oftentimes, the rules regarding public funding are not clearly stated in law, and even if they are, there is often a (real or perceived) misuse of public resources by the incumbent party or candidate. The legal framework can be drafted in a way as to encourage the founding and sustainability of a multi-party system.  Ongoing oversight from a responsible government body combined with public (civil society) oversight through CSO watchdog capacity also can improve the monitoring and full disclosure of funding across party lines and in lines and consistent with the intent of full disclosure and fairness in campaign financing.[1]

Depending on the form in which public resources are made available, public funding is divided into direct public funding or indirect public funding.

Direct public funding is given to political parties and/or candidates in the form of money – usually as bank transfers but at times in cash or cheque.

Indirect public funding is when resources with a monetary value is provided by the Government to political parties and/or candidates.

Arguments against public funding

Those who oppose public funds to political parties or candidates often use one or several of the following arguments:

• Public funding increases the distance between political elites (party leadership, candidates) and ordinary citizens (party members, supporters, voters)

When political parties and candidates do not depend on their supporters or members neither for monetary contributions (membership, donations) nor for voluntary labour, they might be less likely to involve them in party decisions or consult their opinions on policy issues.

• Public funding preserves a status quo that keeps the established parties and candidates in power

Public funds are often allocated among political parties and candidates in the national legislature. This may make it more difficult for new political forces to gain representation. The legal framework can limit this negative influence by providing special funds for new political parties or candidates.

• Through public funds, taxpayers are forced to support political parties and candidates whose views they do not share

Many believe that ordinary taxpayers should not be forced – through the public purse – to support political parties or candidates that they would never choose to vote for. Instead they should have the possibility to decide if and when they want to donate money to a political party or candidate.

• Public funds to political parties and candidates takes money away from schools and hospitals to give to rich politicians

When introduced, public funding is often unpopular among the public. Public resources are scarce and needed for everything from schools and hospitals to roads and salaries for staff. To many people, using public funds to give to political parties and candidates would be far down their list of priorities.

• Political parties and candidates both take the decision and collect the money

The decision to allocate public funds to parties and candidates is most often taken in the national legislature (or in some cases in the Government). This means that the political parties and candidates who will collect the money, also take the decision.

• Political parties risk becoming organs of the State rather than parts of civil society

If all or a substantial amount of the party income comes directly from the State rather than from voluntary sources, political parties risk losing their independence and become organs of the State, thereby losing their ties to the civil society.

Arguments for public funding

A majority of the countries in the world give some form of public funds to political parties and/or candidates. Convincing enough as the arguments above might seem, there are also several good arguments for public funding.

• Public funding is a natural and necessary cost of democracy

Political parties and candidates need money for their electoral campaigns, to keep contacts with their constituencies, to prepare policy decisions and to pay professional staff. If a country wants to have stable political parties and/or independent candidates, some argue that they also need to be prepared to help pay for them.

• Public funding can limit the influence of interested money and thereby help curb corruption

If political parties and candidates get at least a basic amount of money from the public purse this has the potential to limit the likelihood of them feeling the need to accept “interested money” from donors who want to influence their policies, rhetoric or voting behaviour in the legislature.

• With public funding the State can encourage or demand changes in for example how many women candidates a party fields

In the same way as private donations can come with demands on party or candidate behaviour, the State can use public funds to level the playing field and encourage (or force) political parties to undertake reforms, hold internal elections or field a certain number of women candidates, youth or persons from an ethnic minority on their ballots.

• Public funding can increase transparency in party and candidate finance and thereby help curb corruption

If political parties and candidates receive a substantial amount of their income from the State, they can more easily be required to disclose their income and expenditure. If their financial statements are made publicly available, voters can decide which sources of funds are acceptable to them, and they will also have better opportunities to hold politicians accountable.

• If parties and candidates are financed with only private funds, economical inequalities in the society might translate into political inequalities in government

In many countries, the support base of political parties and candidates are divided along socioeconomic lines. The support base of labour or dalit parties for example, are traditionally less wealthy than the support base of other parties. If political parties receive all their income from private donations, there is a risk that (mostly accepted) socioeconomic differences in the society will translate into (mostly not accepted) differences in representation and access to political power.

• Political parties and candidates need support in meeting growing costs of campaigning

Politics and political campaigning is an increasingly costly business. While parties and candidates used to rely heavily on voluntary labour for door-to-door canvassing, they now need to pay for expensive advertising in newspapers or on posters, or buy time on radio or television to get their message through to the voters. Staff costs have risen in many political parties over the last decades.

• In societies with high levels of poverty, ordinary citizens cannot be expected to contribute much to political parties

In societies where many citizens are under or just above the poverty line, they cannot be expected to donate large amounts of money to political parties or candidates. If parties and candidates receive at least a basic amount of money from the State the country could have a functioning multi-party system without people having to give up their scarce resources.

See also ICNL and international  law regarding NGO/CSO oversight of government and governing bodies: http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol12iss1/special_1.htm