In all the arguments over campaign finance reform in the United States, nobody ever seems to mention how other countries do it. How do they do it? For instance: If I want to run for the United States Congress, I have to, in effect, win a “wealth primary” – I have to secure a certain level of campaign funding, out of my own pocket or those of wealthy donors, before I can be taken seriously. And I have to do this myself – my political party will not fund or manage my campaign, not even after I become the party’s nominee for that office. Is it the same way in Britain, if I want to run (stand, they would say) for Parliament? Is it the same way in France? Etc., etc.
Hello? Doesn’t anybody know?
The general principle in Britain is that if you are the official candidate, your party will fund your election expenses – you would not be expected to find the money yourself. However, if you can find the money from your own resources, or those of a sympathetic supporter, then that’s acceptable too. For example, Labour MPs are sometimes sponsored by the Trade Unions they belong to, Conservative MPs by wealthy businessmen etc.
There are strict rules about how much you are allowed to spend as an individual candidate. Until recently, there was no limit to the amount parties can spend on elections (as opposed to their spending on the election of their individual members), but proposals have been made to change that too.
If it’s any help, the situation was much the same in the Roman Republic. You spent a large chunk of your own personal fortune to be elected Consul (highest regular office in the Republic), then after your year was up, arranged to be appointed to a governorship, where you would make back the money you spent by soaking your subjects with taxes.
If it’s any help, the situation was much the same in the Roman Republic. You spent a large chunk of your own personal fortune to be elected Consul (highest regular office in the Republic), then after your year was up, arranged to be appointed to a governorship, where you would make back the money you spent by soaking your subjects with taxes.
In countries other than the US, spending is way less on elections. AFAIK, there is almost no TV advertising in other counties. I’m prepared to be wrong though.
Political parties are not allowed to buy advertising space on TV here.
Instead, the TV (and some radio) stations are obliged to show a regulated number of Party Political Broadcasts (or Party Election Broadcasts in the run up to an election). The number and duration of these infomercials is dependent on the number of MPs the party has, or the number of candidates they are fielding at the relevant election.
The rules and usages in Germany much resemble those described above for the UK (I had been a local party treasurer for three years some years ago).
The main income of political parties are
a) members’ dues
b) donations. Those donations are not “to X-campaign” but “to Y-party”. That’s why any debate in Germany is not about campaign finance law but about party finance law. Donors must be shown in the books (except for small cash collections e.g. when a hat goes round in a local party meeting); large donations from (IIRRC) 10.000 EUR per donor and year must be published with the donor’s name; of the smaller donations only the total is published (on all organizational levels).
c) state subsidies (called campaign expenses compensation) calculated according to a formula which takes into account mainly the votes for the party in the last federal/state elections and paid to the federal/state party organization (there is no such subsidy on the local level).
d) income from party-owned companies and other investments
For my party, the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the 2000 accounts published by the federal parliament (PDF file) say:
total income: 292 million EUR, of which:
51.97 % from members’ dues
7.29 % from donations by persons
1.17 % from donations by organizations/corporations
5.62 % from party-owned companies and investments
1.08 % from sales of e.g. pamphlets and other commerial activity
32.00 % state subsidies
(these numbers are consolidated from all party levels, i,e, federal, state, down to local. Conservative parties have less revenue from members’ dues and more from donations, as a rule - down to e.g. 37.42 % of income from members’ dues for the arch-conservative Christian-Social Union CSU. In 2000 a scandal involving improperly declared donations much hurt the conservative parties.)
Specific income items are not earmarked for campaigns, rather the parties budget campaign expenses out of their available budget, which has also to pay for permanent staff/infrastructure/activities between election campaigns. For example, in 1998, with federal elections and a raft of state/local elections, election campaigns only ran to 35 % of the Social Democratic Party’s (SPD) expenses. (And we won those elections.)
Parties are allocated some (few) broadcast slots for party political broadcasts on the major TV chains prior to federal/state elections. I don’t know if they are barred from purchasing more TV time but they don’t do that in any event.
Election campaign spending is not limited. Trying to buy an election by spending an excessive amount on ads would very likely backfire as the party/the candidate would be cast as being bankrolled by the rich, incurring a substantial odium.
Standing as a candidate does not require personally securing contributions. The hurdle is in gaining your party’s nomination, which usually requires serving in lower party posts and assidious networking. If you are nominated, the party basically provides for campaign finance. If a candidate is very keen he/she can contribute more to the party’s coffers on the understanding that the extra sum goes to the campaign; this usually runs to not more than what a successful professional can squeeze out of the family’s finances.
Interesting, tschild. But what are “members dues”? They seem to be a huge money source. And how much are they? What’s the benefits of being a member?
IIRC, in the United States I don’t think there are any dues for being a member of the main parties… maybe $25 or something. With that you get a free pin and lots of annoying phone calls.
-k
Roughly, in France :
-Political ads are forbidden on TV and radios. During the campaigns (the exact duration of being determined by a law), these medias, when they broadcast a speech, interview a politician, etc…must offer to his/her challengers exactly the same airing time (which sometimes results in plenty of interviews of “neglected” fringe candidates towards the end of the campaign). Also, there’s an official campaign on public TVs and radios, the candidates (for presidential elections) or the parties (for other elections) beign offered a given amount of time to express their ideas (equal time for the presidential election, more time for parties represented in the parliament for other elections).
-The cost of the campaign is normally paid for by the political parties (assuming the candidate belong to a party).
-The donations to parties , by inviduals or by companies, are topped at a rather low amount (can’t remember how much, perhaps a couple thousands dollars or so, which really isn’t much money for a company)
-The campaign expenses are topped too. They must be precisely recorded and are checked by a specific body. Spending more than you’re alllowed to and being elected will lead to the election being cancelled.
-Campaign expenses (up to a given amount) are reimbursed by the state if the candidate/party gets at least 5% of the votes.
This system is designed, obviously, to put all the candidates on a somehow equal footing, and to make sure that the result of the election won’t be too dependant on how much money a candidate or party is able to spend on it, and also to limit lobbying, since the parties/politicians are much less dependant on donations and anyway can’t receive a significant amount from a particular company/industry.
It’s also secondarily designed to limit the tendancy political parties or politicians could have to obtain money by illegal means (like offering some juicy contract to a company in exchange for some cash given under the table).
I don’t know for other countries, but here, there are no benefit for being a member, except that you can vote in the party internal elections (and remember that since there are no primary elections, the candidates are chosen by the party). The cost vary widely depending on the parties, sometimes depends on your own income, but is certainly higher than the 25 you mentionned. If I had to throw in a figure...say 100 /year would seem a resonnable amount.
The purpose of party membership in Britain is similar – it entitles you to vote in internal elections, vote on policy decisions, help to finance campaigns etc. Party membership does also offer a few fringe benefits such as discounted goods and services from other sympathetic organisations, but they’re pretty trivial.
Inevitably you would be placed on a mailing list too of course.
Cost of membership for the main three parties are:
Labour Party: rates of £1 to £10 per month depending on your income (£2 per year if 19 yrs or under)
Conservative Party: £15 per year (£3 if 22 yrs or under)
Liberal Democrats: minimum £5 per year (£1 if unwaged)
Norway is very similar to what has been said about the big EU countries.
Also Norway has almost no direct person elections. A few municipalities are trying out direct election of mayor, but elections for parliament (and county and municipality councils) is by party, with an option to boost individual members on the list for the council elections that is rarely focused on. There are no senators to run head to head campaigns, no presidential primaries and campaigns, and no ‘my congressman’. Well, members of parliament are elected on a county basis, but it doesn’t matter all that much.
The benefits of party membership in Germany are mainly what ** clairobscur** and everton stated for France/UK: the right to participation in internal discussions, elections and votes, and the right to run for party offices. For example my local SPD branch has four main meetings per year, where local, state and federal politics are discussed, plus members have nonvoting access to the local party committee meetings, and get the monthly federal and the quarterly local party paper.
An intangible benefit applies for that small subset of members whose job/business requires negotiations with public officials: being members of the same party, and often being on a first-name basis because of that (e.g. in the SPD we automatically use the familiar Du and address each other as Genosse i.e. comrade), is a valuable ice-breaker.
Party membership dues usually depend on income, e.g. in the SPD they range from 2.50 EUR per month for the indigent to 200 EUR per month for the seriously affluent. I pay about 35 EUR per month. Members assess their dues themselves, for some reason usually underestimating their income ;).
BTW I misstated the year 2000 income of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) quoted in my post above: it wasn’t 292 million EUR but only 292 million Deutsche Mark (DEM), i.e. 149 million EUR or 173 million USD.
Thanks to all posters for the great info! I guess, living in the States, we tend to forget that in Europe, political parties are much more highly organized, with membership dues and membership cards. And party financing for election campaigns.
What about Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? Does anybody know anything about campaign financing/party organization there?
I’m a bit out of touch with NZ, but it used to be the same general deal as Great Britain. TV advertising was rationed out to parties equally - as all the channels at the time were Government owned, this was no big deal. You had to get a certain percentage of the vote in the last election to get advertising time in the next. I remember when the percentage climbed from 2 to about 4% I think - just happened to coincide with the rise of the McGillicudy Silly Party, and kept them below the mark. 
In Australia I’m not sure of the details of election funding limits, though it usually comes from the party to support a candidate - though most advertising on TV is party, not candidate based. Once the election is over, registered parties can receive some of their spending refunded, based on the votes they got.
Just recently a politician was thrown in jail for fraud, and the case was that the Party involved was not a valid one, so the money received was fraudulent. She was later released, with scathing comments from the appeal judges on the original judgment. But the amount involved was about A$500,000 and if I recall correctly the party got about 8 members elected in a state parliament of about 70, so the amounts involved aren’t huge.
"In all the arguments over campaign finance reform in the United States, nobody ever seems to mention how other countries do it. "
I don’t see why you would expect them to. Considering the large role of factors, such as the Constitution, that are unique to the US, the systems of other countries aren’t very relevant.
I’d like to revive this thread to ask about a point no post above directly addresses: Do public campaign-finance systems in other countries work? Do they effectively prevent rich people and corporations from using their money to influence the outcome of public elections? When we debate campaign-finance reform in the U.S., the first argument naysayers come up with (after the First Amendment thing) is, “It won’t work, it can’t work, money always finds a way to buy influence.”
I’ve got a GD thread running on the same question – “How well do campaign-financing systems work in non-U.S. countries?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=275891 – but it’s a factual issue as well as a debatable one, and I think it’s important enough to merit simultaneous discussion in both forums.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/politics/party_funding.shtml
The above link gives the result of a small poll on party funding in the UK.
Look at the comments below question 4.
“These results suggest the system (of funding) stinks but we are unwilling to pay taxes to pay for a cleaner alternative.”
Also in the link below are the views of Professor King who is a “Professor of Goverment” no less
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/takingissue_20030116.shtml
I don’t think the general population gives a monkey’s how the Parties are funded, they don’t trust them regardless of what stripe they are.
So, apparently in Britain, there is public financing of election campaigns, but the parties, as organizations, are privately funded by donations?