party funding Flashcards
1
Q
why do political parties need funding
A
- campaigns
- research policy
- admin
- office space and equipment
- Tv adverts - US
2
Q
where do political parties get this funding
A
- membership
- donations, Lord sainsbury 8 mil to LD
- state funding –> short money from C and Cranbourne from L, for admin and research for policy, for opposition BUT NOT FOR CAMPAIGNING
- businesses
- labour: maj from trade unions, in 2019 due to historic affiliation
3
Q
why do businesses fund parties
A
- to gain influence over policy created
4
Q
main parties funding for 2019 election
A
C - 19, 370, 908
L - 5,411,296
LD - 1,245,998
5
Q
cash 4 questions scandal
A
- cash 4 questions, neil hammond
- ask questions in parl for money
- eg neil was paid to ask why they were against Mohammed al fayed buying Harrods
- led to Nolan report 1995: cannot ask questions for money, disclose any salary they receive from other work, breached by owen patterson
6
Q
1998 neill rep
A
- new labour wanted cig adv in sports to be removed except for f1
- bernie eccelstone gave 1 mil to labour and he wanted cig ads in f1, corruption?
- neil report:
- any donation more than 5000 nationally and 1000 locally must be publicly declared
- anonymous donations more than 50 banned
- no blind trusts
- every shareholder of a business needs to be aware of a donation
- cannot accept donations from foreign organisations
- electoral commission created, parties submit accounts to public
- 20 mil pound GE limit for all
- ref funding for each side kept equal and gov keeps neutral
7
Q
political parties, elections and refs act 2000
A
- limits how much a candidate can spend
- can spend more on marginal seats, and less on safe seats
- made stricter in 2009, where electoral commission can punish with fines etc
8
Q
why is state funding for pol parties bad
A
- how much do all parties get?
- tax money can be better spent
- need money before they can get the vote, but will not get enough until they gain the vote, but cannot
- people dont want money to be spent on particular parties
9
Q
pol parties SHOULD receive state funding
A
- diminishes the influence of big money donations (eccelstone and f1), makes funding more transparent
- 2014: sir michael hintze, gave C 1.5 mil, biggest in 6 years –> hedgefunds received a 150 mil tax break and he was awarded a peerage
- leaders group for those who donate more than 50,000 to C who enjoy benefits , private evenings with PM
- labour and trade union funding, 3/4 of funding under miliband came from them
- state funding can eradicate excessive influences of single individuals/groups in politics
- would only cost the voter less than 50p
- funding allocated by votes -> funding reflects the will of the people, and all parties are encouraged to target all areas
- state funding takes away the 2 party dominance and promotes pluralism, small parties can effectively compete on a national scale
- can make pol parties reflect society; parties that recieve state funding may be required to field a balanced number of female/ethnic minority candidates
- it already exists: extending it would be realising the expense of party pol in 21 cent
10
Q
pol parties SHOULD NOT be state funded
A
- we should be allowed to donate to causes we believe in, fundamental right –> denies support, undermines a principle of a pluralist liberal democ
- there is effective reg: pol parties acts 2000 and 2009 –> spending in 2010 was less than 30 mil, while C spending in 1997 was 28 mil –> less than this in 2001 asw
- would primarily benefit historically large parties, smaller parties rely on their individual funding, would drown them out
- allows for dynamism: UKIP breakthrough in 2014 due to individual funding
- parties lose independence, cannot challenge the state and offer radicalism when needed
- will separate parties from electorate, apathy, mistrust
- parties no longer need to appeal to public for funding, so disconnect and requirement to reflect public opinion gone
- money can be better spent
- should the state fund all parties, even non democratic ones
