How Should Political Election Campaigns Be Funded?

Question

believe there are five main alternatives:
1. state funding via taxes (according to percentage of votes in previous elections)
2. unlimited (if you can't enforce any rules, why have limitations at all)
3. obligatory media access (each newspaper and TV & radio station has to give the top three parties one free-of-charge double-page/half-hour per week during that month and a 4th for the rest/minor parties + they have to answer each others questions at publicized debates)
4. personal finances only (barr all companies & organisations from donating)
5. off the deposits (use the deposits that all must pay to enter to finance the whole thing)
Which one or combination is best at producing a well-informed electorate and an as impartial as humanly possible (rather than bribed up) legislature?

Answer 1

I think full state funding is best. It's the only way to prevent businesses and wealthy individuals buying special priviliges.

In America (where they spend a lot more on Elections) companies really have big influence over politicians. That's hardly democratic. It's probably why the Bush Administration denies climate change - to protect big oil and other polluting companies.

Of course full funding would mean you'd have to give at least some money to looney/rascist parties but overall I think it's the lesser of two evils.

Answer 2

There is a simple answer to this which is fair and just. The starting point of my suggestion should be at the next general election. All political parties enter their candadates, an election league is then formed on the results of the election.
Based on the votes cast to the top eight parties.
i.e UKIP Ten Million Votes
BNP 9.99 Million Votes
Say No To Europe 9.00 Million Votes
Pensions Party 8.89 Million Votes
Green Party 1.00 Million Votes
Independant party 0.5 Million Votes
Conservative Party 0.1 Million votes
New Labour 2 votes

The number of votes determining the funding to each of the top eight parties as a percentage of the total funding available.
Funding should be part state and part donations. All donations should go into a central fund. Say I donate a hundred thousand pounds to UKIP, I of couse should be able to help any party i chose but my suggestion is that only £40,000 should go to UKIP the rest goes to a central fund and distributed at the next general election to the various parties in the top eight as a percentage of their appeal to the public determined by the percentage of votes.
I would also say that the media must be forcesd to give all legitimate parties equal time to express their views on television
and newspapers etc.heavy fine should be imposed on media that do not. These fines should be placed in the election pot


ATB Red

Answer 3

I don't think preventing, or controlling campaign funding from any particular source is the right strategy.

People and corporations should be allowed to support the candidates that they see most fit for their agenda. In that, I think the most important thing is to be more open about who the funders are, how much they give and how this influences a politician's agenda.

I don't know the rules for this in the US, but in Norway we have laws that require any gift to a political party worth more than approx. 1000$ have to be made public, both the amount and the name of the donor. In addition, political commercialism is illegal in the media, which is something I whole-heartedly support. I mean, what is "political commercials" anyways? It's propaganda. Now why would you want that?

In my opinion, the American political debate is to 'superficial'. For most part it seems to revolve around catch phrases and smearing campaigns, and rarely do you get to see any honest debates between several candidates. This is something that is dumbing down the country and therefore hurting democracy. And it gives a lot of power to the contributors, since the whole thing then turns into a psychological mind-game.

So my view is that this is largely the responsibility of the media. You need proper debate programs in prime time TV with hosts that ask the tough questions to all candidates. And of course, media should present a much wider variety of candidates, like 3rd party candidates and people who aren't expected to get through the primaries.

If the media did their job properly and also if you got rid of political commercials in mainstream media, then campaign funding wouldn't be that big of an issue. Because then ultimately, it would come down to the substance in the arguments of the candidates.

So I think more important than campaign funding, is for the media to push the political debate in a more 'intelligent' direction. But I have no idea how you would go forth to make that happen, since the US media is owned by the same people who support the campaigns. Everyone knows that Rupert Murdoch has his own agenda, so it's quote an unholy alliance you have there between media, corporations and politicians.

Maybe one state funded TV-channel with certain responsibilities wouldn't be such a bad thing. Anything that can make the political debate more intelligent, in stead of just basing everything on catch phrases and populist spin. In my opinion, political commercials in mainstream media is a very destructive thing for democracy.

Answer 4

Public funding is an option that is possible from a federal level. Yes it is tax payers money. Yes, some will complaign about that. But if we, the tax payers are the ones funding campaigns, doesn't that give us the control. Look at the voting record of any major polititian and you will see their tendencies lean towards special interest groups that finance their campaigns. It is a fact of life in Washington. If public financing is the only option, not only do we take power and preference from special interests, but we can dictate the voting paterns of our elected officials. We would also be aple to cap that funding, a measure I would highly support.

Answer 5

I do not believe in corporate donations. I agree with public donations to the present limit of $2500.00 a person, and with the $3.00 per taxpayer donation plan. I also believe that the media should provide free public debates and to focus on individual issues one at a time, as chosen by the American people via the Gallup Poll or some other independent, bipartisan survey. I believe in equal time for all credible candidates, based on public opinion polls where participants would have to receive over 10% voter support. I would also make voting over a two-day period, and possibly make Election Day a national holiday.

Answer 6

By party members only. They select the politician in the first place. The state funding of political party's is not feasible,as they would still collect monies's from elsewhere to squander,and everyone could set themselves up as a party to claim,and who could dispute them funding. Free access to the media must be on equal footings for all party's if fairness is to be observed. The deposit idea who pays the deposit?but party funding. I think the present system while not perfect if properly policed should work.I do not mean policed by the politicians themselves either.

Answer 7

None of these will enhance our democracy, rather they will operate just as premier league does in football cornering all the cash making it even harder than it is now for independents to stand, get heard and elected.

It should be state funded on a campaign by campaign basis.
That is a ward by ward if local and constituency by constituency when a general election is called.
e.g. in a general election
Each candidate of what ever party, or independent should be required to find £2,500 (that is a £1 week if elections are held every five years, even someone on benefits could save that if they tried) then the state will give that candidate a further £20,000 for their campaign in that area. To cover offices/phones etc.
Current rules on proving appropriate expenditure may need to be reviewed.

Other sums of donations in kind or volunteer services would be covered by existing rules and a value limit of £30,000 set per candidate.

All TV and Radio should be made to have hustings in all constituencies(not allowed to pick 'swing' ones only) and all candidates should be entitled to equal coverage from the media by law.

The Judiciary should be given powers to review a candidates application to stand, and bar them, if they hear evidence of racial hatred motives or past illegal activity considered unfitting for an MP. (costs paid for by the taxpayer)
Malicious complaints will result in the complainer being barred from all future elections for life.

This would create a much wider field of candidates and much better coverage. Much fairer chance to hear good quality individuals concerned about the people and the country.

I feel it would improve the quality of candidates, though it may be necessary to limit a field to a maximum number of 20 candidates.

Answer 8

Nope. assume twenty 5 people desperate to run. that could bypass away $40,000 a bite, which isn't adequate to purchase a single television advertisement. even nevertheless i could like to confirm each and all the campaigns bypass byebye, it fairly is basically no longer useful. What there could desire to be is a decrease on how plenty you are able to spend on a definite place of work. Like a million mill for a governor, 5 mill for a senator or representative, and 10 mill for president. this could get rid of a great sort of organizations from being waiting to make applicants beholden to them because of the fact they funded a 50 million greenback campaign! confident, I comprehend you're interior the united kingdom, yet i presumed you may desire to translate senator to MP and president to top Minister.

Answer 9

Election campaign in my opion should be funded by the politician them self, as the the one who get handsome salaries if elected and do not listen to the public views!

Answer 10

State funding would be a bad idea as we would all be paying for political parties that we do not support.