State Funding of Political Parties

The Gaffer · 09-01-2006, 06:17 AM

Should political parties receive funding from the public purse?

As we know, politicians are in hock to those who support them financially. Democracy, and public confidence in politicians, is undermined by the perception that they are flogging political influence in return for cash (or loans, as most recently came to light in the UK).

So, state funding would ensure that they do not have to go cap in hand to whatever corporate interests are willing to buy influence.

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/natarch/...y-funding.html

Wayfarer · 09-01-2006, 07:25 AM

No.

1) Any time political parties are allowed to receive government (federal or state), that places the control of the purse-strings in the hands of the winner. In the end you can't out-spend the government, which I think is one factor contributing that to the excessive rate of incumbent re-election.

2) Politicians are inherently no better than lobbies or corporations or unions or whatever. If you expect someone to go along with a private interest who gives them funding, isn't it just common sense to expect them to do the same for congress?

3) The 'public purse,' as you say, is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are quite capable of choosing who to support financially - as witnessed by the huge amounts of cash both parties rake in in donations. They don't need any help.

4) The government has no self control. The party in power would continue to vote themselves more and more campaign dollars, funded through taxation, to the point that the challenger couldn't compete.

Generally, the more power the government has the less power individuals are going to have - what is needed is to make politicians more accountable to anybody other than themselves. They already have the power to re-draw districts so as to ensure themselves safe seats in congress - now you want to expand their power to fund a campaign with my money? No way.

Spock · 09-01-2006, 09:27 AM

The point is moot, no pun intended, as we have laws which state who, how much, etc. can give both to parties and candidates. The problem lies with PAC's.

**Nurvingiel** · 09-01-2006, 01:58 PM

Great post Wayfarer.

Some of your points are US only (in Canada, you can't redraw districts for example).

In Canada, we do have government funding for all political parties. Any party who gets more than 5% of the popular vote gets $2 per vote received, as funding for their campaign for the next election.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this though. Independent candidates never get this funding, for example. (Though sometimes they do with their seat.)

Parties are also allowed to receive private donations, but there is a maximum any one person or group is allowed to donate, to eliminate parties being indebted to donors (hopefully).

On the one hand, government funding keeps the parties from relying on large donations. On the other hand, why should tax dollars be used to fund campaigns which, while they do inform voters of candidates' existence, largely do nothing.

Personally, I don't really want my tax dollars going to the Liberals' and Conservatives' stupid TV ads, and the Green Party doing squat.

Spock, what are PACs?

***Jonathan*** · 09-01-2006, 02:53 PM

Should political parties receive funds from the public purse? I'd have to say yes.

Then of course there would have to be lots and lots of regulations. I think some of what Wayfie said could be avoided with some good regulations and as Nurv said, not all of that even applies to political systems outside the US.

It is my belief that helping people to start their own parties is a contribution to democracy and one way to encourage that is through state funding. Very small sums would suffice I think.

The Gaffer · 09-04-2006, 04:16 AM

Firstly, a plea for no jargon. Can we spell out what we mean if we're posting some stuff that other people might not have heard about?

Second, yeah, that was a rather nice summary of the problems posted by Wayfarer.

There are also the minutiae of how people qualify and how it's regulated as you touched on Nurv.

I am instinctively against the idea, for all the reasons above, but as time goes on it is becoming more and more clear to me that political parties do NOT reflect the will of the people, but of big business. This seems to be leading us towards a fascist-lite corporate state, where the masses are totally disengaged from the political process and treated like mushrooms (you know, kept in the dark and fed on ****). I think we're a long way from that now, but I think that's the direction the US and the UK are heading.

Just thinking about Wayfarer's reasons again:

1) Clearly, this would have to be regulated. Are there examples of winners abusing their positions like this.
2) Not quite sure what this means.
3) But influence is directly proportional to wealth, under the current model. Maybe that's OK, but it's not democracy. The model which I think Nurv outlined was one where there is a cap (i.e. maximum amount) on individual donations to political parties, and the state matches that donation or membership fees of each individual.

Thus, the "state funding" is still dependent on individuals' choices. The end result is that the parties have to attract more people to join them in order to get more funding (as opposed to sucking up to rich people, as they currently do).

4) The funding mechanism would prevent that.

It's the last point that is most depressing, and I guess it reflects one of the greatest differences between US thinking and European thinking. A stronger state SHOULD mean greater influence for the people, as it is implementing the people's will as mandated in an election. A weaker state means less influence for the people, because the state allows corporations to run the show, motivated purely by their own profits.

09-01-2006, 06:17 AM	#1
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	State Funding of Political Parties Should political parties receive funding from the public purse? As we know, politicians are in hock to those who support them financially. Democracy, and public confidence in politicians, is undermined by the perception that they are flogging political influence in return for cash (or loans, as most recently came to light in the UK). So, state funding would ensure that they do not have to go cap in hand to whatever corporate interests are willing to buy influence. http://www.redpepper.org.uk/natarch/...y-funding.html

09-01-2006, 07:25 AM	#2
Wayfarer The Insufferable Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 3,333	No. 1) Any time political parties are allowed to receive government (federal or state), that places the control of the purse-strings in the hands of the winner. In the end you can't out-spend the government, which I think is one factor contributing that to the excessive rate of incumbent re-election. 2) Politicians are inherently no better than lobbies or corporations or unions or whatever. If you expect someone to go along with a private interest who gives them funding, isn't it just common sense to expect them to do the same for congress? 3) The 'public purse,' as you say, is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are quite capable of choosing who to support financially - as witnessed by the huge amounts of cash both parties rake in in donations. They don't need any help. 4) The government has no self control. The party in power would continue to vote themselves more and more campaign dollars, funded through taxation, to the point that the challenger couldn't compete. Generally, the more power the government has the less power individuals are going to have - what is needed is to make politicians more accountable to anybody other than themselves. They already have the power to re-draw districts so as to ensure themselves safe seats in congress - now you want to expand their power to fund a campaign with my money? No way. __________________ Disgraced he may be, yet is not dethroned, and keeps the rags of lordship once he owned Last edited by Wayfarer : 09-01-2006 at 07:28 AM.

09-01-2006, 09:27 AM	#3
Spock An enigma in a conundrum Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 6,476	The point is moot, no pun intended, as we have laws which state who, how much, etc. can give both to parties and candidates. The problem lies with PAC's. __________________ Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

09-01-2006, 02:53 PM	#5
*Jonathan* Entmoot Attorney-General, Equilibrating the Scales of Justice, Administrator ♎ Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Posts: 3,891	Should political parties receive funds from the public purse? I'd have to say yes. Then of course there would have to be lots and lots of regulations. I think some of what Wayfie said could be avoided with some good regulations and as Nurv said, not all of that even applies to political systems outside the US. It is my belief that helping people to start their own parties is a contribution to democracy and one way to encourage that is through state funding. Very small sums would suffice I think. __________________ An unwritten post is a delightful universe of infinite possibilities. Set down one word, however, and it immediately becomes earthbound. Set down one sentence and it’s halfway to being just like every other bloody entry that’s ever been written. ☻

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Gender Issues	Nurvingiel	General Messages	124	09-12-2008 10:43 PM
The ACLU - pros and cons	Rían	General Messages	259	07-27-2006 05:39 PM
Political philosophy	Gilthalion	General Messages	210	06-19-2006 08:22 PM
Nation States - The Great Continent of Entmoot	jerseydevil	Entmoot Archive	323	06-17-2004 11:27 AM

09-04-2006, 04:16 AM	#6
The Gaffer Elf Lord Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: In me taters Posts: 3,288	Firstly, a plea for no jargon. Can we spell out what we mean if we're posting some stuff that other people might not have heard about? Second, yeah, that was a rather nice summary of the problems posted by Wayfarer. There are also the minutiae of how people qualify and how it's regulated as you touched on Nurv. I am instinctively against the idea, for all the reasons above, but as time goes on it is becoming more and more clear to me that political parties do NOT reflect the will of the people, but of big business. This seems to be leading us towards a fascist-lite corporate state, where the masses are totally disengaged from the political process and treated like mushrooms (you know, kept in the dark and fed on ****). I think we're a long way from that now, but I think that's the direction the US and the UK are heading. Just thinking about Wayfarer's reasons again: 1) Clearly, this would have to be regulated. Are there examples of winners abusing their positions like this. 2) Not quite sure what this means. 3) But influence is directly proportional to wealth, under the current model. Maybe that's OK, but it's not democracy. The model which I think Nurv outlined was one where there is a cap (i.e. maximum amount) on individual donations to political parties, and the state matches that donation or membership fees of each individual. Thus, the "state funding" is still dependent on individuals' choices. The end result is that the parties have to attract more people to join them in order to get more funding (as opposed to sucking up to rich people, as they currently do). 4) The funding mechanism would prevent that. It's the last point that is most depressing, and I guess it reflects one of the greatest differences between US thinking and European thinking. A stronger state SHOULD mean greater influence for the people, as it is implementing the people's will as mandated in an election. A weaker state means less influence for the people, because the state allows corporations to run the show, motivated purely by their own profits.