Feature
All the funds of the fair
by Steven Price
Sensible party funding rules are within our grasp.
I wish I didn’t have to start off this way, but apparently I do: money in politics is a good thing.
Am I crazy? Doesn’t money corrupt politics? Shouldn’t the Coalition for Open Government be fighting to eliminate its evil influence?
Not entirely. We need political parties. We want them to take the pulse of the electorate. We want them to develop thoughtful, well-researched policies. We want them to follow a careful process for selecting candidates. We want them to communicate with us about their plans and proposals.
These are the foundation stones of our democracy. And they cost money. We need to get real about that when we’re debating the government’s upcoming campaign finance legislation.
What’s important is that money isn’t used to buy policies or influence, or give some parties an unfair electoral advantage, or trigger a wasteful advertising arms race.
Most countries have sensible rules for controlling money in politics. We don’t.
At the moment, our laws permit huge anonymous political donations (such as the $1.74 million given to National in 2005 by donors whose identities were hidden by secret trusts.). They help parties in Parliament misuse Parliamentary funds for electioneering purposes (such as Labour’s $446,000 pledge card). They let wealthy organisations pour money into advertisements designed to help a particular party (such as the Exclusive Brethren’s pamphlet campaign).
Part of the problem is that our existing laws aren’t rigorously enforced. Despite strong evidence of a swag of Electoral Act offences last year, the police prosecuted no one. The police paper trail showed that their investigation was badly flawed. It doesn’t help that the police are one of four different agencies charged with operating our election laws. Nor are they really the best equipped to understand and investigate complicated and politically explosive electoral law breaches.
The problems with our electoral system were so starkly exposed at the last election that we now have a golden opportunity to fix them. Labour has been developing its proposals with appalling secrecy for such significant constitutional reforms, but at least we’ll get to see and debate them when they introduce a bill shortly.
How can we tell if it will be any good?
The most important thing to look out for is the donation disclosure rules. What will we get to know about who’s giving money to political parties – and when will we know it? In Canada, voters are told the identities and donations of anyone who gives more than $200 in a year. Parties should be forced to reveal their income streams before we vote, not months after the election.
The next thing to check out is caps or limits on donations. The United States and Canada both ban donations from corporations, unions, and foreigners. Canada also tightly limits donations from individuals to prevent any chance of influence peddling.
Whatever the shape of the disclosure regime, it will be a sham without strong laws stopping people from funnelling their donations through others, or through trusts. Our current laws mostly consist of loopholes.
Watch out, too, for the new rules about third-party spending. Of course, everyone is entitled to have their say during an election. But wealthy people and organisations can afford a lot more say, and at some point a big-budget ad campaign run by a few wealthy individuals, businesses or unions becomes undemocratic. Think of the barrage of ads featuring screaming babies shortly before the referendum on MMP. They nearly tipped public opinion, and it’s hard to believe people were persuaded by the cogency of their message.
Again, the important thing is that voters know who’s behind such advertising, and where they’re getting their money. The Coalition for Open Government also thinks we should think about following Canada (and our own citizens-initiated referenda rules) and cap the amount third parties can spend influencing the election. Anti-collusion laws would stop people rorting these limits, too.
Also on the wish-list: the amalgamation of our election authorities into one agency headed by a Parliamentary Commissioner for Elections, with the power and resources to oversee the whole process, including investigating and prosecuting breaches.
What about public funding? Looks like it’s off the agenda, which is a shame, because there’s been no real debate about it. Such a debate might start by noting that we already have public funding – money allocated for political broadcasts and various streams of Parliamentary funds used for election purposes. Those should be made more fair and transparent.
It might then explore such ideas as the United Kingdom’s policy development grants and free mail-outs for all candidates; the United States’ matching funds for private donations to presidential candidates; and Canada’s tax credits for donations.
We’ve already seen what happens if we don’t use the right oil for democracy’s engines: our political machinery breaks down.
Steven Price is the spokesperson for the Coalition for Open Government, which is campaigning for strong campaign finance laws. This is the original unedited version of his article.
