|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Campaign Finance: What laws work for it?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I know very little about campaign finance laws in countries other than the US. As many of you know, here in the states the laws were permissive to begin with and recent Supreme Court decisions have made our elections awash with money - so much so that the umbrella of advocacy groups funded by the Koch brothers have announced that they will be spending nearly a billion dollars for the 2016 election cycle, which is about equal to how much either of the two main national political party committees intend to spend.
I'm curious to find out what campaign finance laws are like in the countries that other shipmates live in and whether they are successful or not in preventing wealthy individuals, corporations, labor unions, interest groups, etc., from having more influence than they should on election outcomes and policymaking. How do your laws work and are they not restrictive enough, too restrictive, or just right?
Is it possible to control campaign spending when money can be funneled into any nonprofit claiming to advocate for "issues" and not candidates (but is really trying to get certain candidates elected)? Does controlling broadcast television ads matter nearly as much as it used to now that more and more people get more of their media content from the internet?
Do your country's laws require political donors to make their name and donation amount public? (Here in the US there is some degree of disclosure of donations to actual campaigns - but the nonprofits I was referring to (like the ones funded by the Koch brothers), which are called "social welfare groups" get to keep their donors secret.) If it is impossible to control political money in the modern neoliberal globalized economy (is it?), is forcing disclosure of all political donations the second-best option? Can this be done without silencing unpopular minority voices?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
stonespring: Do your country's laws require political donors to make their name and donation amount public?
Yes, Dutch laws do that. However, Geert Wilders has found a way around that. His PVV is officially not a party, because formally it consists only of him. I don't know exactly how it works, but this means that he doesn't have to disclose his donors.
It's a public secret that he receives a lot of money from the right wing in the USA and Israel.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
In the UK, there are quarterly figures published by the Electoral Commission on party financing, with a publicly accessible database giving details of all donations.
As far as I am aware, there are not many rules about restricting what can be done, it's just that whatever is done is relatively transparent - and you can be assured that any jiggery pokery will be seized upon by your political opponents.
The ongoing debate on party funding between Labour and the Conservatives is a question of influence. On the one side, Labour are largely funded by the unions, whose influence have given us paid holidays, workers' rights and a national minimum wage.
The Conservatives consider this to be an abomination and instead of being funded by democratically elected bodies who represent millions of working people, they prefer to have their funding come from rich oligarchs who, in return for their support, are rewarded with generous tax breaks.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I wonder...does the type of legislature make a difference? E.g., US Congress vs. parliamentary systems?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I wonder...does the type of legislature make a difference? E.g., US Congress vs. parliamentary systems?
I can't see any obvious reason why it should.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
The courts do make a difference, though. Canada is the entire opposite to the US. Federal political donations are limited to $1,200, and you must be a Canadian Citizen and cannot be a corporation or union. Provincial governments vary; BC and PEI are nearly unlimited and let corporations and unions donate while Quebec, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have limits comparable to the federal rules.
The key court decision is Harper v. Canada (2005), in which our current PM was the appellant. The Supreme Court of Canada unequivocally rules that free speech permits you your turn, it does not let you crank up the volume so much it drowns out other people. It the complete opposite to Citizen's United.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
As far as I am aware, there are not many rules about restricting what can be done, it's just that whatever is done is relatively transparent - and you can be assured that any jiggery pokery will be seized upon by your political opponents.
There are very strict (and small) spending limits on each candidate's campaign, but not on the campaigns of parties. That's why if you want a relatively small poster in your window expressing your political views, it'll say 'Vote Joe Bloggs, your local Labour candidate', but if you want a big poster, it' just say 'Vote Labour' and be more colourful; the 'Vote Joe Bloggs' ones come out of the very controlled pot and they really can't afford big bits of paper.
Yes, this is completely absurd and pointless.
Oh yes, and TV adverts are banned. But parties get free 'party political broadcasts' which are effectively 10 minute long adverts. But no-one wants to watch a 10 minute ad, so you wait for the news to summarise it for you.
That also sounds absurd and pointless.
I seem to remember the major parties voluntarily 'don't accept foreign donations'. However, they do accept donations from UK companies owned by foreigners, even if those companies don't seem to do anything except donate to political parties.
We seem to avoid having so many Super PAC like campaign groups. I guess that may be partly because the election is much more a choice between 2 parties. There's less scope for people wanting to spend money on a not-quite-partisan campaign issue.
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
For those countries which allow unlimited political advertising, and unlimited expenditure, does it work? Are people actually persuaded by it? Or does it merely further persuade those that have already made up their minds anyway?
Having switched off innumerable party political broadcasts, I can't imagine anyone being persuaded by any of them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by *Leon*:
[QB] Oh yes, and TV adverts are banned. But parties get free 'party political broadcasts' which are effectively 10 minute long adverts. But no-one wants to watch a 10 minute ad, so you wait for the news to summarise it for you. [QB]
I don't think PPBs have been 10 minutes for a very long time.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think PPBs have been 10 minutes for a very long time.
Indeed. The Marr Show is an hour long.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think PPBs have been 10 minutes for a very long time.
Indeed. The Marr Show is an hour long.
I think there are some pretty fundamental differences.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
As well, in Canada, should you donate more than $100 (federally), your name and the donation are public information and can be found on Elections Canada's website. In Ottawa, most political fundraisers only give receipts for $75 so that people can retain anonymous.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Eh? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I raised $4,000 myself last year for my Riding Association, and 100% of it was documented.
You have to receipt 100% of what is given, so you can, theoretically, collect lots of $75 donations. But good luck getting 1200 separate individuals in a single riding (~100,00 people). The $100 threshold is per person, per year. The NDP relies heavily on monthly automatic donations and has for decades; each transaction which is over the $100 limit must be disclosed.
My name and postal code is going on the list this year.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I should have been clearer; the event (Chinese restaurants are popular) cost is usually $125-- $50 for the event, and $75 for the receipt. Everything is documented as it must be for receipt purposes but, given the sum involved, individual names are not published. I once saw a chart of local NDP riding associations with the fundraiser/automatic donation proportions, but this was a few years ago-- the percentages varied quite a bit.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Ah, thank you for the explanation. Most appreciated.
While they may be a thing in bigger centres, NDP Federal Office actively discourages ridings from relying on ticketed events as a vehicle for fundraising. They are nice for a leader's appearance, or where there is an incumbent NDP MP, but elsewhere they are not effective at all.
The plain fact is that ticketed suppers are inefficient fundraising vehicles. They are incredibly demanding of volunteer time for a poor yield. To raise $110,000, which is the local campaign limit in a full-size riding (not in provinces with smaller ridings), you need to sell 1500 tickets in a single year.
The big moneymaker in the NDP is monthly member contributions through PAC (Pre-authorized contribution), at both the Federal Party and Federal Riding levels. I can review the figures, but I guarantee that monthly contributions are now 70% to 100% of every NDP Riding Association's income. It costs $5/contributor/year to run.
I should also note that there is a generation gap between Augustine and myself. Augustine's circles expect that donor will enjoy privacy, while my generation knows that donor lists are now public by law. There is no expectation of donor privacy anymore in Canada, none. It's a tremendous culture shift and one that is still not fully worked out.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I suppose before you can answer a question like "what laws work?" you need to explain what you would intend a law on campaign finance to do, what is broken that you want the law to fix?
For me, I would want to have a situation where the deciding factor in the success of a campaign is the policies of the candidate. A situation where the deciding factor is how much money the candidate can spend seems unsatisfactory. Probably even worse is a situation where the policy and/or candidate is dictated by the campaign funders, though I don't know to what extent that happens.
My very limited experience in the UK is that at the local level campaign support is almost exclusively spread over the membership of the local party. And, only a small proportion of that support is in the form of cash donations. The real work is done by local party members going door to door, talking to people on the high street, organising visits by the candidate to local schools and hospitals, etc. All voluntary, and if actually costed probably far in excess of the actual cash spent.
Nationally things are a bit different. Far more of the campaigning involves paid staff and commercial services.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Canadian donor lists, if memory serves me well, are only public for donations of over $200-- accordingly, many donors in the Ottawa area keep their support below that level so their names and donations would be not public. Fairly or not, many in the public service suspect that there might be negative implications for them should they be visible as sizeable contributors. I have had friends who were advised to take down lawn signs for "their own good"-- in some departments, there are individuals in ministers' offices who are immature and partisan enough to concern themselves with such minor issues but I cannot see how they are able to effect a negative impact on an official. I suspect that these fears are perhaps groundless as I recognize a number of seniorish (director and director-general) names on all three parties' lists.
In days gone by, public servants would normally channel donations through their spouses to avoid visibility but those days are gone along with (a former deputy minister) Sir Joseph Pope's avoidance of voting so as to be seen to be an impartial figure.
I have not been occupied with financial minutiae for many years now, but in the 1980s an annual fundraising dinner would corral $35,000 or so in profit- four of those would keep the election fund well-fed for the next polling day. However, fundraisers are now vampires of volunteers' time and I think most parties prefer the steady flow of automated payments.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are, of course, good reasons for a fund-raising dinner (or other event) other than just fund raising. They should be part of the campaign itself, and a shift to thinking only in terms of hard cash is regretable IMO.
A dinner like that is a chance for the local party faithful to gather, to meet the candidate in a less formal setting, probably have some party big-wig in to give a moral boosting speech to rally the troops and tell them what an absolutely vital part of the campaign their efforts are. It's practice for the volunteers putting it together for other events in the campaign (it's embarrassing for someone to be late because they're told the wrong time for a local dinner, if it's the candidate missing a TV interview in the campaign it's a disaster), and build up the team.
All of that is lost if the event becomes "get as many rich folk to pay through the nose for a slap-up meal and an entertaining speaker" to bring in loads of cash.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are, of course, good reasons for a fund-raising dinner (or other event) other than just fund raising. They should be part of the campaign itself, and a shift to thinking only in terms of hard cash is regretable IMO.
*snip*
We often forget the degree to which political activism is a social activity like any other volunteer endeavour, where more-or-less likeminded people get to hang out and do stuff together.
But as far as the OP is concerned, the federal ban on corporate (private or union) donations has made life much easier for the grass-roots fundraiser at the same time it changed things entirely for the national-level funding folks. Forcing it into the grassroots has been very good for keeping things as honest as can be managed (intellectual integrity is another issue!) and making it really very difficult to buy influence or favours. There are some entertaining and embarrassing exceptions, and cheerful viewers of Canadian television will be much entertained in months to come.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I have a slightly different perspective, as I entered politics as a riding activist in a no-hope riding. At the local level, politics is all about people. As membership officer, I spent my time dealing with the little membership hiccups that the Party Office overlooked. They were names to them, but people to me. The Party Office folks often didn't really understand us, even when we tried to work together. It was disheartening. The problem is worse in the NDP because of the party's unique structure with provincial sections; Federal Office only gained direct control over federal ridings in 2013, so there is still an 'us vs. them' attitude, on both sides.
The other thing is that the tax credit for political donations up to $400 is 75%, so a $400 donation costs $100 out of pocket. Or in monthly terms, a max political donation is $100/month, and the $400 threshold is only $33/month gross, $8.50 net, which is in fact average for regular PAC donors. $200 is nothing in terms of monthly donations; a $20/month donor will break that limit and a $15/month donor will break that limit with a year-end contribution.
Then again, I don't live in Ottawa, where government is the principal industry.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Apparently hi-tech is supposed to be Ottawa's first industry now, but I am not sure of those numbers.
*tangent alert* SPK may or may not be interested that a friend of mine holding office on a NDP riding committee in the 1970s was told by her Deputy Minister (for non-Canadians, the permanent civil service head of a department) to resign her post or look for a job-- through one informal network or the other, the then minister, Bob Andras of Thunder Bay came to hear of this, and went to my friend at her cubicle and told her to keep her committee office and that he would square it with the Deputy. Stockwell Day did a similar stomping on one of his political staff who was picking on an opposition party office-holder in the department. However, I do know that one of Mr Mulroney's ministers tried to have a former Liberal assistant, ensconced in his department, fired-- the Deputy asked for a written direction and nothing more was heard of it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
During the 1979 election (aka The Joe Clark blip), my mother, who was a Tory riding association elsewhere in Ontario wanted to support her daughter-in-law who was running in an Ottawa area riding for those damn pinko-commie socialists (her words, not mine). I was able to tell her that many "women-in-other-parties" supporters gave in cheques for $99 and thus their names and Mother's would not need to be reported.
By 1995, I was CFO of another provincial election campaign in Ontario. Out of respect for my supervisor, I reported this, and was told not to do election fund-raising work at the office, and otherwise to keep a low profile. No problems there. Low profile would have been impossible during a federal election as federal election law required the CFO' authorisation on every campaign sign - ie "Authorised by Joe Blow, CFO for Jane Doe election campaign" This requirement has been subsequently modified. In any case, in the Public Service in Ottawa not been able to participate, office volunteers would have been decimated...
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
