Funding political parties

Frank the tank

In the light of recent events at NOTW and news international and the implication MPs may be influenced due to the fact their parties are supported by the organisation is it not time for political campaigns to be capped and funded by the state?

finchy

Frank the tank wrote:

In the light of recent events at NOTW and news international and the implication MPs may be influenced due to the fact their parties are supported by the organisation is it not time for political campaigns to be capped and funded by the state?

In principle I agree, but I think that it might come unstuck when it came to personal donations.

Frank the tank

It would be difficult to introduce and personal donations would also be an issue. I just feel something has to be done to take politicians out of the pockets of powerful organisations (and before I'm jumped on by all the anti-trade unionists on here :roll: ) yes that would include trade unions.

Red Rock

It could be funded by putting VAT on newspapers :-)

markos1963

I agree in principle. How would you decide how much each party would get and what would stop an invididual to declare himself a political party just to get thier hands on some cash?

rick_chasey

markos1963 wrote:

I agree in principle. How would you decide how much each party would get and what would stop an invididual to declare himself a political party just to get thier hands on some cash?

Pay them all the same amount.

If you get fewer than a certain amount of votes, you have to pay the money back.

jibberjim

Frank the tank wrote:

In the light of recent events at NOTW and news international and the implication MPs may be influenced due to the fact their parties are supported by the organisation is it not time for political campaigns to be capped and funded by the state?

So you think politicians are corrupt, and with that conclusion you think it's a good idea to give them taxpayer money? How exactly will that reduce corruption, surely it just gives them the opportunity to get an even bigger pot of cash by taking money from the state and other organisations.

If you don't believe politicians to be corrupt, then there's even less reason to fund them through taxes since other methods are available that don't place a burden on those not interested in supporting their viewpoints.

shouldbeinbed

Jibberjim, how do you make the jump from influenced to corrupt? 2 very different things.

jibberjim

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Jibberjim, how do you make the jump from influenced to corrupt? 2 very different things.

Surely not? Influence only becomes a negative thing if it causes the politicians to do things not in the best interests of their electorate - since that is their job. So if it does do that then they're corrupt (e.g. by doing things in the best interest of those who've influenced them.) However if they simply get information, but still make the decisions that are in the best interest of their electorate, then there's not a problem.

They have to get the information - and removing the funding link won't change that - they'll still be lobbying companies, the majority of information will still come from organisations with an agenda - since no-one else will be motivated to do it. So if the politicians are not corrupt, then it doesn't matter where the funding is coming from. It can simply come from the cheapest to the electorate, so a system that is funded by voluntary contributions is a good one.

Frank the tank

jibberjim wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

In the light of recent events at NOTW and news international and the implication MPs may be influenced due to the fact their parties are supported by the organisation is it not time for political campaigns to be capped and funded by the state?

So you think politicians are corrupt, and with that conclusion you think it's a good idea to give them taxpayer money? How exactly will that reduce corruption, surely it just gives them the opportunity to get an even bigger pot of cash by taking money from the state and other organisations.

If you don't believe politicians to be corrupt, then there's even less reason to fund them through taxes since other methods are available that don't place a burden on those not interested in supporting their viewpoints.

I turn it around then, why do organisitions donate to/sponsor political parties if it's not to get legislative dicisions that favour them?
Not saying MPs are corrupt, but, when things go a bit pear shaped and moral lines have to be drawn if it affects their financial supporters there is obviously a clash of interest.
If election campaigns (at least) were funded by the tax payer it would hopefully erradicate the allegation of MP "X" being in the pockets of the unions/news international/whoever.
As for how campaign funding would be achieved.
Firstly the number of seconders/proposers backing any potential candidate could be increased to 1,000. Only then would anyone be allowed to "stand".
Second, the degree of funding would depend on how many seats a party is standing in.
Third, anyone losing their deposit would have to pay any funding back.
Having said this if it were to happen there'd be less democracy as probably only the wealthy would be able to run for election.

MountainMonster

As a diplomacy and politics student, this is always quite an interesting topic when it is brought up.

On one hand, capping the amount of funds would be good to stop huge biases being thrown into the equation, and influencing someones positions. But on the other hand, if caps were introduced, it would be pretty hard to keep track of personal donations, and you would see a rise in under the table deals made on pro-bono basis.

The problem with this topic is there is really no proper way to go about it. Major corporations will find ways to donate to campaigners, be it through the use of monetary funds, or via the use of bonuses (all inclusive holidays, "help" getting fancy cars, strippers).

If you ask me, capping the funds, or making them state mandatory will only raise the level of corruption within some of the campaigns, and it will be almost impossible to eradicate. Use of state funds will only end up costing the tax payers even more, as there will be an indefinite rise in taxes, as well as fairly likely drops in public spending in other sections, resulting in even unhappier inhabitants.

One thing to remember when it comes to corruption. is it is a reflection of cultural values. Countries with high corruption rates ALWAYS have a high rate of theft within the general population. The only way to properly eradicate the corruption would be to somehow change a countries views on theft. If the average person may find it ok the steal, then of course the politicians will have corrupted views as well. This, of course, can take decades, if it even works.