Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

State funding of political parties
Section B. Constitutional/governance

Some countries, such as Australia, fund their political parties through taxpayers’ money. Other countries, including the UK, require their political parties to fundraise to meet their costs. Which system is fairer and more democratic? The different models for state funding are complex, but it may be worth a Proposition team giving some details about the system they would use as it can affect the arguments. It is possible, however, to have the debate in principle and this article looks at the arguments as they work across various models. There is an interesting related debate on capping campaign expenditure which also seeks to create a more transparent political system.

Pros

[1] As long as parties have to raise their own funds, rich individuals and interest groups who donate will have disproportionate influence in society. Remove the need for money and you remove the influence of the funders and level the playing field for all voices to be heard. There is evidence that politicians are swayed by the views of those who fund them, be they oil companies, trades unions or millionaires who are essentially buying favourable legislation. A famous example of this was in 1997 when Tony Blair’s government exempted Formula One racing from a ban on tobacco advertising after receiving a significant donation from its president, Bernie Ecclestone.

[2] State funding makes elections fairer in two ways: first, it prevents a party from effectively being able to buy an election due to their fuller coffers allowing them significantly more publicity; second, it makes it easier for small or new parties to make an impact on the electorate as they are not priced out of the system.

[3] State funding leads to a reduction of the total amount of money in elections. This is a positive thing as it decreases flashy television advertisements in favour of an increase in cheaper grass-roots campaigning, thereby engaging the voter more directly and focusing on policy rather than image.

[4] State funding of political parties reduces public cynicism about politics as it leads to a fairer and more transparent system. The public find it hard to trust in politicians who they believe can be bought.

[5] This system allows politicians to focus on politics rather than fundraising. Parties are under huge financial strain and must devote large amounts of time and energy to staying solvent. They must often prioritise attending a fundraising event with rich donors over a charitable, civic or cultural event which needs their support and from which they could gain a wider understanding of the needs of their constituents or the country at large.

[6] An effective democracy is worth spending money on. State funding would represent a tiny amount of government spending and would be in line with money already spent on democratic processes such as elections and referenda.

Cons

[1] We have to protect people’s freedom to participate in the political system and giving money to political parties is one way of doing this. It is a step down from standing for office oneself and on a par with giving one’s time for campaigning. It is not just millionaires who donate; many working people donate small amounts to parties through unions and it is the number of them that make them significant. Parties do not change their policies as a result of donations, but rather, donations follow policies; e.g. big businesses give money to the party they would like to see elected because they support their policies. There is nothing corrupt about this.

[2] How do you decide which party gets what funding? There is no good way; either you give an advantage to the incumbents and entrench the status quo of the big parties by giving them the most, or you disproportionately support small fringe parties, which is unfair and could lead to the taxpayer funding extreme parties’ campaigns.

[3] State funding limits the overall amount of money which is spent in campaigns. This is bad in principle as it curtails freedom of speech, and bad in practice as it makes it harder to engage votes and leads to more voter apathy.

[4] It is not necessary to go so far as state funding to have transparency. An open register of donations allows the media to hold parties to account and prevents corruption.

[5] The need to fundraise leads to responsive parties. If they are automatically bankrolled by the state, then they could soon become isolationist and introspective elites.

[6] State funding of political parties is a waste of taxpayers’ money and there is little public support for it. Most people believe that there are better things to spend their taxes on than political parties.

Possible motions

This House supports state funding of political parties.

This House believes that state funding of political parties enhances democracy.

Related topics

Democracy

Term limits for politicians

Politicians’ outside interests, banning of