Public funding are funds or resources provided by the State/Government for political parties and/or candidates. Provisions often state that political parties and candidates should have an equitable access to public funds. Oftentimes, the rules regarding public funding are not clearly stated in law, and even if they are, there is often a (real or perceived) misuse of public resources by the incumbent party or candidate. The legal framework can be drafted in a way as to encourage the founding and sustainability of a multi-party system. Ongoing oversight from a responsible government body combined with public (civil society) oversight through CSO watchdog capacity also can improve the monitoring and full disclosure of funding across party lines and in lines and consistent with the intent of full disclosure and fairness in campaign financing. [1]
Depending on the form in which public resources are made available, public funding is divided into direct public funding or indirect public funding.
Direct public funding is given to political parties and/or candidates in the form of money – usually as bank transfers but at times in cash or cheque.
Indirect public funding is when resources with a monetary value is provided by the Government to political parties and/or candidates.
Arguments against public funding
Those who oppose public funds to political parties or candidates often use one or several of the following arguments:
When political parties and candidates do not depend on their supporters or members neither for monetary contributions (membership, donations) nor for voluntary labour, they might be less likely to involve them in party decisions or consult their opinions on policy issues.
Public funds are often allocated among political parties and candidates in the national legislature. This may make it more difficult for new political forces to gain representation. The legal framework can limit this negative influence by providing special funds for new political parties or candidates.
Many believe that ordinary taxpayers should not be forced – through the public purse – to support political parties or candidates that they would never choose to vote for. Instead they should have the possibility to decide if and when they want to donate money to a political party or candidate.
When introduced, public funding is often unpopular among the public. Public resources are scarce and needed for everything from schools and hospitals to roads and salaries for staff. To many people, using public funds to give to political parties and candidates would be far down their list of priorities.
The decision to allocate public funds to parties and candidates is most often taken in the national legislature (or in some cases in the Government). This means that the political parties and candidates who will collect the money, also take the decision.
If all or a substantial amount of the party income comes directly from the State rather than from voluntary sources, political parties risk losing their independence and become organs of the State, thereby losing their ties to the civil society.
Arguments for public funding
A majority of the countries in the world give some form of public funds to political parties and/or candidates. Convincing enough as the arguments above might seem, there are also several good arguments for public funding.
Political parties and candidates need money for their electoral campaigns, to keep contacts with their constituencies, to prepare policy decisions and to pay professional staff. If a country wants to have stable political parties and/or independent candidates, some argue that they also need to be prepared to help pay for them.
If political parties and candidates get at least a basic amount of money from the public purse this has the potential to limit the likelihood of them feeling the need to accept “interested money” from donors who want to influence their policies, rhetoric or voting behaviour in the legislature.
In the same way as private donations can come with demands on party or candidate behaviour, the State can use public funds to level the playing field and encourage (or force) political parties to undertake reforms, hold internal elections or field a certain number of women candidates, youth or persons from an ethnic minority on their ballots.
If political parties and candidates receive a substantial amount of their income from the State, they can more easily be required to disclose their income and expenditure. If their financial statements are made publicly available, voters can decide which sources of funds are acceptable to them, and they will also have better opportunities to hold politicians accountable.
In many countries, the support base of political parties and candidates are divided along socioeconomic lines. The support base of labour or dalit parties for example, are traditionally less wealthy than the support base of other parties. If political parties receive all their income from private donations, there is a risk that (mostly accepted) socioeconomic differences in the society will translate into (mostly not accepted) differences in representation and access to political power.
Politics and political campaigning is an increasingly costly business. While parties and candidates used to rely heavily on voluntary labour for door-to-door canvassing, they now need to pay for expensive advertising in newspapers or on posters, or buy time on radio or television to get their message through to the voters. Staff costs have risen in many political parties over the last decades.
In societies where many citizens are under or just above the poverty line, they cannot be expected to donate large amounts of money to political parties or candidates. If parties and candidates receive at least a basic amount of money from the State the country could have a functioning multi-party system without people having to give up their scarce resources.
[1] See also ICNL and international law regarding NGO/CSO oversight of government and governing bodies: http://www.icnl.org/research/journal/vol12iss1/special_1.htm
© 1998-2024 ACE project
What is a political party?
Do UK political parties still fulfil their functions?
What is the British party system?
How are UK political parties organised?
How do the UK Conservative and Labour parties compare?
What is a political party faction?
What are the roles of UK political party members?
What is an electoral professional party?
Do UK political party members still matter?
How are parliamentary candidates selected?
How are UK political parties funded?
Should UK political parties be funded by the State?
What is political ideology?
What is political Liberalism?
What is the ‘left’ in British politics?
What is the ‘right’ in British politics?
What are UK consensus and adversarial politics?
Has there been political consensus in Britain?
Was there a political consensus after Margaret Thatcher?
Where did the 2010 UK coalition government have consensus?
Where did the 2010 UK coalition government disagree?
Has the UK Labour Party stayed close to its roots?
Competing Ideas: One Nation Conservatism vs Thatcherism?
What was David Cameron’s Conservatism? (overview)
Was David Cameron more ‘One Nation” or Thatcherism in style?
What ideological divisions have there been in the UK Conservative Party?
Most western democracies have state funding of political parties.
In Australia this is for the cost of elections, in Germany state funding matches what the parties raise in donations and in the Netherlands it is for research.
Both the Phillips Report, commissioned by the last Labour Government and the Committee on Standards in Public Life, in 2011, recommended state funding based in part on numbers of votes and in part on matching donations or making them tax deductible.
Arguments between the two main parties about whether Labour’s funding by trade unions should be included and whether the limit on individual donations, from which the Conservative benefit more, should be set at a low level have prevented any agreement.
In the current climate when there is a distrust of politicians and public expenditure is being cut back, it makes it more difficult to gain public support for the idea.
Previous Next
Electoral bonds and after: What eminent personalities say about state funding too
Geetanjali Minhas | March 25, 2024 | Mumbai
On February 15, the five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court declared the government's electoral bond scheme as unconstitutional. It also struck down amendments the government had made to facilitate passage of EBs wherein the Finance Act 2017 made amendments to the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951, the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Companies Act, 2013. The Supreme Court based its judgment on two issues: It described the level playing field amongst political parties, the logic being that free and fair elections are the bedrock of a democracy and for elections to be free, the level playing field should be same for all contestants. In the present case the level playing field was disturbed by secrecy of bonds or secrecy of donor. The other issue, the SC observed, was that the scheme violated the voter’s fundamental right to information about the sources of funding for political parties. A voter, in order to make an informed choice on which party should he or she vote for, needs information as also information about from where the party get this money. The judgment stands on these two pillars. The electoral bonds scheme introduced in January 2018 promised transparency by way of donations and allowed anonymous donations by individuals and organisations to all political parties through banking channels. The scheme allowed unlimited donation to political parties and removed the requirements to declare and maintain a record of donations through electoral bonds. The government was criticised for breeding corruption on the premise of anonymity. With the top court restoring the status quo that existed before the Finance Act, 2017 was passed in statutes, we go back to the question of the funding of political parties. The issue of the funding of political parties has been long discussed, requiring urgent reforms. Several committees through the years since 1998 have suggested state funding for elections. Political parties need money to run their offices throughout the country, establishment costs, staff salaries, travel, election campaigns, tours, publicity etc. How should political parties raise funds? How transparent should be funding to political parties or how much transparency is ideal? Governance Now spoke with three eminent personalities on these issues: Transparency had to be forced Professor Jagdep Chhokar, founder member, trustee ADR, the main petitioner in the EB case I have no problem with corporations giving donations to political parties, but it should be done transparently. That most money goes to BJP was already known as those figures were available from the statement of income and expenditures that political parties give to the Election Commission. However, now the data shows who gave how much money to the BJP or who has donated to which political party. But it is the belief of people that when money is given in exchange of favour, it is quid pro quo and it is important for people to know of it because they have to decide whether a particular decision or action of the political party is taken to benefit any company or any individual or to benefit the people and the country. The government reasoned that the donor wants anonymity to avoid vindictive action from the ruling party if donation has been given to an opposition party. But who takes vindictive action? It is the political party. In state A, party X is taking vindictive action. In state B, party Y is taking vindictive action and in state C, party Z is taking vindictive action. So, vindictive action is taken by political parties against the donors of other parties. The only way to solve the problem of vindictive action is that political parties have to accept that people will donate to all parties and they should stop taking vindictive action. But they will not stop. So the stand of the parties is that we will keep taking vindictive action. People or the society should find a solution. Political parties have to behave responsibly. Therefore, transparency has to be forced. The problem is not created by the corporates. The problem is created by political parties. Of course, corporates may also be partners in this crime – they want to get undue benefit, so they give money. And since they don't want to make it public that the benefit is a return for money, both parties are guilty. So transparency is the only answer, which is what the court has ordered. The Central Information Commission has said that six national political parties are public authorities under the RTI law but the parties don't follow that direction. For that reason we are in the Supreme Court. Parties have to learn to follow the law of the land. With the electoral bonds scheme now closed, Indian democracy will be where it was in 2016. Till that time, democracy in India was functioning quite well. To say that before electoral bonds came Indian democracy was absolutely useless is not correct. At that time too, we were we were trying to make Indian democracy better. There were problems in funding arrangements and we were fighting against them; we were correcting them or trying to correct them which will continue. The only difference was if somebody was caught giving money to political parties it was considered a crime. Electoral bonds made that legal. Now it will be a crime again.
A beginning can be made for state funding of parties Prithviraj Chavan, former chief minister of Maharashtra , former member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha With as many as 5,000 registered political parties, the state funding will not work. First of all, political parties have to be registered, adhering to and running their party as per their own constitution, filing of regular returns to income tax and to election commission authorities. All these things have to be made compulsory. Registering a new political party has to become a lot more difficult. The national status to a political party could be given as per the formula that is currently in vogue which makes about five-six parties ‘national parties’. Funding should only be provided to national parties and not to the smaller parties, to take part in national elections. If that works, it can be carried further to state-registered parties for assembly elections in the next step. The first step to try to make sure that national elections are funded through the state exchequer to the percentage of voted polled last time and in that ratio a common minimum should be given to every party. And then top it up with the percentage of votes obtained in the last civil elections. This should be tried for Lok Sabha elections also. Simultaneously, an attempt should be made to make sure the number of registered parties is in tens, that is, 40-50 or even 100. It will be unwieldy and impractical if everybody wants funding. That will be ridiculous. So funding should be provided only to the national parties and votes polled in last elections should be the criterion to receive state funds. Some money could be given as per votes polled by national parties. That could be a beginning. It is not a perfect system like EVMs, it is an evolutionary process (people still don't believe that EVMs are completely transparent). But somewhere a beginning has to be made of actually giving of cash to nationally registered parties on the condition that their accounts will be examined by income tax authorities as any other corporate account. While parties do not have to pay taxes as per tax provisions, their accounts have to be audited. The source of funds are to be identified, sources of funds from the corporate sector are to be identified with a limit on cash donations audited by income tax thoroughly just as corporate accounts are audited. Both expenditure and income should be checked and only on that condition should state funds be distributed to national parties. The money should be spent only for recognised political purpose and any money received by the party should be identified. Party-internal elections are to be held transparently and even if the election commission can be given some role to supervise the party elections, I would not be averse to that, as that too is a process that has to evolve over a period of time. As long as parties are run as per their own constitutions and office-bearers are elected democratically as per their own constitutions they should be eligible for receiving state funds. Lot more needs to be done. Free coupons for petrol, diesel, advertisements, etc. could be provided and cash should be given to the political parties subject to the condition that accounts are thoroughly examined like corporate accounts. If their accounts are properly audited and there is no violation, only then income tax exemption should continue. Not state funding but crowd funding could be the answer Pavan Varma, author, former diplomat and former Rajya Sabha member In a country where parties have different majorities, I am against state funding for political parties. If that were to happen, funds will be disproportionately distributed and it will still not obviate the additional role that cash has to play which means there will be cash influence. The only way out that I see in the future is that all political parties must compulsively select funds or donations through digital transfers which has to be put up on websites of the respective party. Because parties need money to fight elections, crowd funding is the only way to ensure some level of transparency. Today because of the digital revolution almost anybody can donate to a party digitally. It leaves a financial trail and that amount must be displayed on the website, so the public knows how much money a party has collected. Later when we observe by any objective assessment, a political party’s vast amounts of spending over and above what has been revealed through legitimate digitally transferred donations which are the only avenue to transfer money , people can question where the money is coming from? This was done successfully by Bernie Sanders, the former US president hopeful. He said he will not take any donations from corporate houses but he will do crowd funding through which any individual can send any amount to his cause and fund through digital transactions. And through this process he received as much as $250 million, details of which were transparently available on his website with the name of the sender and the amount. Now ultimately these are the reforms which have been recommended by the election commission. Accounts of candidates are audited, but accounts of public political parties are not even audited. All they have to do is to submit a statement of accounts. The EC has said that there should be a panel of chartered accountants recommended by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) who must compulsorily audit the accounts of political parties. These measures along with compulsory funding only through digital transactions are the only way to provide transparency. Electoral bonds were a total fraud in the name of reforms. The Supreme Court has rightly nullified them. But, that is still not an answer, because now, instead of bonds, the same donors will have to generate black money to pay money in cash. The answer lies only by way of digital transactions where citizens have the right to know who has given what and parties have to do to display these details compulsory on a public website.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) on Friday announced the schedule for the elections to the assemblies of Jammu & Kashmir and Haryana. While the border state will have elections in three phases, on September 18, September 25 and October 1, Haryana will vote on October 1. Votes will be counted on O
A transitioning journey from being a victim as well as a witness to sex-selection procedures to becoming a vocal advocate against them, Dr. Aruna Kalra, a leading obstet
The top officials of the Election Commission of India (ECI) made a two-day of visit of Haryana ending Tuesday and held a detailed and comprehensive review of the preparedness for the forthcoming assembly elections. The term of the assembly is due to expire on 3rd November and elections are
No other state in India sees its government school teachers featured in viral videos as frequently as Bihar does. These videos, often amusing to outsiders, showcase reporters asking the simplest of questions — such as spelling a month’s name or naming the country’s president — only
Critically acclaimed actor Adil Hussain is known for his award-winning performances in independent and commercial cinema as well as Indo-European art-house films and theatre. His body of work include films like Oscar-winning ‘Life of Pi’, ‘What will People Say’, ‘Mukti Bhavan&
The Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act, 2015 (MRTPS Act) was enacted for transparent, efficient and timely delivery of public services to citizens and to bring in transparency and accountability among the public authorities. Geetanjali Minhas spoke to Manu Kumar Srivastava, chief commissi
This chapter discusses existing hypotheses about the reasons for the introduction of state funding to political parties and links them to one of the main new institutionalist approaches. From a rational choice perspective, state funding to political parties is a response to rising costs of political competition. However, these costs have risen in all democracies, no matter whether state funding has been introduced. From a historical institutionalist perspective, the introduction of state funding is, for instance, linked to étatiste traditions. This explanation fails to explain why, in some countries, no state funding exists despite influential étatiste traditions, or why state funding was only introduced when these traditions were actually eroding. Normative institutionalist approaches link the introduction of state funding with a specific logic of appropriateness which, for instance, prompted a perception of parties as ‘public utilities’. In order to avoid such barely falsifiable arguments, the next chapter refers to actor-based institutionalism.
Sign in with a library card.
Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:
Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.
Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.
If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.
Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.
Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:
Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:
If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.
A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.
Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.
Click the account icon in the top right to:
Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.
For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.
Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
October 2022 | 1 |
November 2022 | 3 |
December 2022 | 5 |
February 2023 | 5 |
March 2023 | 3 |
April 2023 | 2 |
May 2023 | 3 |
August 2023 | 4 |
October 2023 | 1 |
November 2023 | 3 |
December 2023 | 4 |
February 2024 | 2 |
April 2024 | 6 |
June 2024 | 2 |
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide
Sign In or Create an Account
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
Politics Review
Gerrymandering in the usa.
Simon Brown and Nick Gallop debate the issue
On a superficial level, a claim that the state funding of political parties is nothing more than the forced transfer of taxed income to disconnected Westminster elites seems credible. But a look below the surface reveals a compelling case that state funding would increase transparency in UK politics and limit the influence of corporate money in what should more appropriately be referred to as ‘state funding for democracy’.
The most convincing argument in favour of state funding is the need to diminish the influence of ‘big money’ donations to political parties. Since the 1997 ‘Ecclestone–New Labour’ affair there have been several legislative attempts to make party funding more transparent. However, it would be wrong to suggest that corporate or ‘big money’ donations no longer result in either excessive influence or an undermining of the democratic process.
Sign up today to give your students the edge they need to achieve their best grades with subject expertise
Make Your Note
This editorial is based on “Should elections be state funded? ” which was published in The Hindu on 17/11/2023. It talks about the absence of transparency in election funding, examining the prospect of state funding as a potential solution to augment transparency in electoral processes.
For Prelims: State funding of elections , Chief Justice of India , Indrajit Gupta Committee , Law Commission of India , Second Administrative Reforms Commission , National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution , Election Commission of India.
For Mains: About State Funding of Elections, Various Commissions about State Funding of Elections, Arguments in Favor of State Funding of Elections, Arguments Against State Funding of Elections, Way Forward.
A Constitution Bench led by the Chief Justice of India has recently concluded its hearings that challenge the legitimacy of the electoral bonds scheme. The discussions primarily revolved around the conflicting aspects of voters' right to information and the confidentiality of donors.
The central concern in these proceedings is the need for transparency in election funding. In this context, the reconsideration of the state or public funding of elections has emerged once again.
By embracing transparency in electoral funding in India, the nation can fortify the foundations of its democratic institutions and empower citizens with the knowledge and confidence that their electoral choices are influenced by ideas and values rather than the undue influence of financial interests.
Discuss the potential benefits and challenges associated with implementing state funding of elections in India. What policy measures do you suggest to create a more equitable and accountable electoral process in India? |
Consider the following statements: (2017)
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 3 only
Q. In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India? (2018)
Should political parties be funded by the state rather than by individual and corporate donations?
Corruption is one of the most damaging elements in politics, as it involves a democratically elected…, at the moment, the amount of money needed to run a successful election campaign prevents new parties…, why should parties be funded out of the public purse when there are so many other pressing concerns,…, all the no points:, yes because….
Corruption is one of the most damaging elements in politics, as it involves a democratically elected representative serving his own interests rather than those of the people he was elected to serve. Sleaze brought down Major’s government, and the Ecclestone affair damaged Blair’s credibility immensely (Blair exempted Formula 1 racing from a ban on tobacco advertising. It was later revealed that Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 boss, had donated 1 million to the Labour party). With state funding of political parties, perhaps proportional o average opinion poll ratings, the potential for corruption would be reduced.
On the contrary, state funding, with its lack of transparency to the average voter, actually encourages corruption by its complex nature. At the moment, French politics is engulfed in controversy over sleaze despite partial state funding, and British campaign spending limits are always ignored in practice. In the real world, groups will always find a way to influence politicians amenable to corruption, by secret donations to offshore accounts, or by setting up ‘research’ funds for specific concerns.
At the moment, the amount of money needed to run a successful election campaign prevents new parties, or smaller parties, even exerting their small proportion of influence on the outcome. Smaller parties are a vital part of a democracy, as they ensure that a complete spectrum of opinions is represented. The fact that the need for wealthy backers excludes them is unfair and unrepresentative; there has been many complaints about the way Lord Ashcroft is seen as one man bankrolling the Conservative party from his private fortunes, and thus exerting a disproportionate influence on politics. State funding provides a level playing field.
Why should parties be funded out of the public purse when there are so many other pressing concerns, such as education and healthcare ? Why should our taxes go to parties whose policies we may not support, and who we certainly will not vote for ? Indeed, if money is being given to any party that meets a threshold of support, this will mean nationalist and extremist parties being funded by a majority who despise their views. Besides, if parties are removed from the necessity of having to raise funds, they will become more unrepresentative and more detached from the day to day political realities. The artificial level to qualify for funding makes a false distinction between the spectrum of smaller parties that exist today, and gives some disproportionate influence.
It is a right for anyone to be able to make a donation to a cause they strongly believe in, and to curtail this right is to curtail liberty. State funding removes thus right, and places it with unaccountable civil servants on funding committees, who set the levels at which support will be given. These are the people who decide who big a party must be to qualify for funding, and the Proposition has simply shifted responsibility away from the public to an elite. It should be the right of any individual to lend support any party he chooses
We would love to hear what you think – please leave a comment!
Skip to content
Join get revising, already a member.
No comments have yet been made
The Funding of UK political parties 5.0 / 5 based on 3 ratings
UK Politics - Paper One Summary 0.0 / 5
NOTES ELECTIONS 0.0 / 5
The electoral process and direct democracy 5.0 / 5 based on 3 ratings
A2, Unit 3C - Elections and Voting 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating Teacher recommended
Elections and voting 0.0 / 5
Unit 3 US Political Parties Revision 0.0 / 5
A2 Politics GOV3A Political Parties Revision Guide (AQA) 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating Teacher recommended
A2 Government and Politics GOV3A Revision Guide (AQA) 5.0 / 5 based on 1 rating Teacher recommended
America: Democracy (2) 0.0 / 5
Discuss the view that there should be more state funding for political parties.
Thomas Smith 6F3
Parties in the United Kingdom today are funded in a variety of ways. Parties rely on a number of things to generate income. Party membership, trade unions and donations from wealthy individuals are all examples of ways parties do this. State funding, an idea of citizens in the UK paying a sum of money to the government to bankroll parties, is a topic today that is widely debated in the political side of the nation, and many, including I, believe it to be an advance which is highly recommended in government today. The reason why it is debated is because it holds both advantages and disadvantages, with strong arguments on both sides of the debate, which will be explored in this essay.
I for one agree to the idea of state funding for the following reasons. State funding brings about a number of assets to the government. Arguably the biggest advantage is that it will largely prevent something which has been controversial and talked about for a long time- parties relying on donations from wealthy individuals. The removal of this would be effective, as it has been much speculated that those who donate a lot of money to the government can have some sort of political influence- as was with Bernie Ecclestone when he donated £1 million to the Labour Party which may (and probably did) result in a subsequent delay in the introduction of the ban on tobacco advertising in Formula 1. Such controversy in politics is simply unacceptable, hence why preventing outsiders to have a say in politics, with the help of state funding, brings about a major advantage. After all, Britain is a democracy, and fairness and justness must not be undermined.
State funding would also allow politicians to focus on representing their own constituencies. After receiving money from the people they represent in these constituencies, they would have the resources and more incentive to represent their people, who have after all effectively given money to help the MP’s. You could call state funding a natural and necessary cost of democracy- as political parties and candidates need money for their electoral campaigns and to prepare policy decisions and to pay professional staff. If a country wants to have stable political parties and/or independent candidates, some argue that they also need to be prepared to help pay for them.
Another advantage of state funding is that poorer parties who do not receive as much income as Labour and the Conservatives (i.e. the Liberal Democrats) would finally be able to compete on a (relatively) equal financial footing, as all three parties would be getting around the same amount of money from the public and, as previously mentioned, individual donations would be prevented. This again highlights the essence of fairness in British democracy today. Another advantage of state funding worth mentioning is that with state funding, the public can encourage or demand changes in how the country is run. In the same way as donations from wealthy individuals come with demands on party or candidate behaviour and can influence political decisions, the public can use state funds that they themselves pay to level the playing field and encourage (or force) political parties to undertake certain reforms, hold internal elections or field a certain number of women candidates, youth or persons from an ethnic minority on their ballots, for example, as it is all their own choice, due to the fact that it is them that paid the government, and so they should be able to get a say in how it is run. Again, this is what a real democracy would be like as it would show “power to the people”. It links in with the fact that public funding helps decrease the distance between political elites (party leadership, candidates) and ordinary citizens (party members, supporters, voters), because when political parties and candidates do not depend on their supporters or members neither for monetary contributions (membership, donations) nor for voluntary labour, they might be less likely to involve them in party decisions or consult their opinions on policy issues, hence why the public paying money to help run the government is important.
Another reason why state funding is important is that politics and political campaigning is an increasingly costly business. While parties and candidates used to rely heavily on voluntary labour for door-to-door canvassing, they now need to pay for expensive advertising in newspapers or on posters, or buy time on radio or television to get their message through to the voters. Staff costs have risen in many political parties over the last decades, and it essential for the public to fund parties in order for parties to operate to their full potential and cover the ever-rising costs of today’s world.
On final point is that if parties and candidates are financed with only private funds from wealthy individuals, economical inequalities in the society might turn into political inequalities in government. In many countries, the support base of political parties and candidates are divided along socioeconomic lines. For example in the United Kingdom, the support base of labour and left-wing parties for example, tend to be traditionally less wealthy than the support base of other parties- i.e. the Tories(not always though). If political parties receive all their income from private donations, there is a risk that socioeconomic differences in the society will translate into differences in representation and access to political power.
On the other hand, one could say that parties being state funded is not at all a worthwhile idea, for the following reasons.
Firstly, taxpayers should not have to provide their hard-earned money to supply parties’ needs that they may not even support. The average civilian in the UK gives a generous amount of money to the government through taxation anyway, and so compulsory state funding would be simply unfair and largely unnecessary. And if they don’t support the parties, then they have no need or right to contribute money to help these parties. One could hardly see many members of ethnic minorities happy about funding the campaign of the British National Party for instance!
Also, making state funding the main source of funding would largely eliminate interest groups (i.e. trade unions for Labour). This may not be a good thing, as this could cause politicians to feel isolated with no guidance available, and guidance and help is something which is essential to politicians nowadays, as without the support of organisation they may not operate to their full potential. With state funding, parties may not be able to get as much money as they potentially could, which means that the system could stop the parties from prospering fully.
Also, state funds to political parties and candidates take money away from schools and hospitals to give to rich politicians.
When introduced, public funding is often unpopular among the public. Public resources are scarce and needed for everything from schools and hospitals to roads and salaries for staff. To many people, using state funds to give to political parties and candidates would be far down their list of priorities, hence why it would be a bad idea. Although the public would be paying the wages they certainly won't have any influence on who gets how much, despite providing the money it will be the politicians and candidates, and not public, who will be creating the decisions.
Also, despite the claims from the “for” side of the argument that state funding would be fairer for smaller parties, there is an inevitable flaw. Many people have touted the idea of linking state funding to the number of votes won by the party. There is a fundamental flaw with this approach - richer parties can run bigger campaigns. This may let them secure more votes, and therefore more state funding, making them even richer. The effect reinforces the cause - small parties would find it hard to grower under this system.
The introduction of state funding would mean that parties might no longer make such strenuous efforts to raise money. Under state funding the need for fund raising would be non-existent and therefore one of the most important local party member activities would be stopped. This would discourage membership of political parties and therefore reduce the amount of political participation by normal citizens and cause the political process to become further alien to the electorate and perhaps reduce turnout further.
The vital role of MPs is to represent their constituents and the vital role of the government is to represent the nation. If money came from the state there is a danger that political parties in this country would use state funding to advance their own ends and not represent the people who voted them in. Even if this was not the case, it could well become the public perception of the situation and further alienate the public from the political process. Clearly, this is not at all a positive attribute hence why state funding could be seen as a bad thing to implement.
Evidently both sides of the argument have strong reasons why state funding should/should not be introduced in the United Kingdom. On the one hand it would make the democratic process fairer, as all parties would supposedly receive the same amount of money and would be on a level-playing field with the “Big-boys” (Labour and Conservatives). However this statement can be argued against- bigger parties naturally get more votes, which means they may get a larger share of the state funding given out; which nullifies the idea that it is fair.
Somebody who is against state funding could argue that people in the UK get taxed enough, and so shouldn’t have to pay their own money toward parties they may not even care about. However this argument can be challenged by the fact that without state funding, corruption (as seen with Ecclestonegate) will remain a key issue and that the parties are working to the benefit of their rich business backers and not representing the will of the people, and that with state funding they will work to represent the people as they are the providers of the money, and so will focus solely on them, as it should be in a democracy. However once again even this counter-argument can be countered, because if state funding were to be introduced, then the parties would not have to work as hard to gain money from their party members, which could in turn result in MP’s not fully representing the people who voted them in, possibly causing the public to feel detached from the political process, which is totally not what the government want to happen.
Although state funding has some clear advantages and disadvantages to the way the country is run, it is my opinion that the benefits of state funding outweigh the disadvantages- the elimination of corruption in a democracy is simply essential as is economic equality and fairness and representation within parties in the United Kingdom, so that smaller parties -which are a vital part of a democracy as they ensure that a complete spectrum of opinions is represented- are represented, so that just like in a proper democracy all voices can be heard. It is for these, and other, strong reasons that I agree to the idea of implementing the system of state funding in the United Kingdom today.
Related discussions.
Posted 1 week ago
Last reply 1 week ago
Posted 2 weeks ago
Last reply 3 weeks ago
Last reply 1 month ago
Posted 1 month ago
Posted 2 months ago
Last reply 2 months ago
What A-levels do you need to become a teacher?
What jobs could you do with a degree in criminology?
Finding a university place in Ucas Clearing 2024: 10 top tips to help you get ready
Top 10 tips for Ucas Clearing 2024
Advertisement
Free vasectomies and an inflatable iud: abortion rights advocates hit the d.n.c..
This convention is likely to be a head-on display of a new, unbridled abortion politics.
By Jess Bidgood
While delegates are in Chicago for next week’s Democratic National Convention, they will engage in the typical pageantry and traditions: They’ll vote for their nominee, pose for photos with elected officials, and show off their state with cool buttons or themed hats.
They will also have the option of getting a free vasectomy or a medication abortion just blocks away.
A mobile health center run by Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, which serves much of Missouri and part of southern Illinois, plans to park itself near the convention and offer those services early next week to anybody who makes an appointment, delegate or not. (There is so much interest in the vasectomy appointments, I’m told, there is already a waiting list.)
It’s a way of showcasing how reproductive health care providers have had to get creative when operating in or near states like Missouri, which borders Illinois and has a near-total abortion ban.
But it also underscores the way this convention, more than any other, is going to be a head-on display of a new, unbridled abortion politics.
For years, many Democrats believed too much talk about abortion rights might drive away moderate or religious voters. Four years ago, at the Covid-dampened convention of 2020, President Biden did not utter the word abortion in his speech. Neither did Vice President Kamala Harris (although she did refer briefly to racial injustice in “reproductive and maternal health care.”)
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in .
Want all of The Times? Subscribe .
IMAGES
COMMENTS
essay plan - evaluate the view that political parties should be state funded. - There have been many reasons as to why state funding has been suggested as a means to reform the UK's political system but most prevalently due to the belief that powerful interests offer finances in return for political influence.
Public funding are funds or resources provided by the State/Government for political parties and/or candidates. Provisions often state that political parties and candidates should have an equitable access to public funds. Oftentimes, the rules regarding public funding are not clearly stated in law, and even if they are, there is often a (real ...
Unit 1: UK Politics Topic 1: Democracy and Participation Evaluate the view that political parties should be funded by the state (30) Criticism 1: The current system is flawed and corrupt in favour of larger parties, suggesting undemocratic practices in the UK political system.
If there is State funding of parties there will be increased calls for the regulation of what the money is spent on and parties will be less independent of the State. The Party in Government will have the power to change the rules on funding to their advantage. Some party spending goes on advertising, attacks on other parties and 'spinning ...
most. In conclusion state funding should not be introduced into the UK. Some may say that the UK should introduce state funding to political parties due to their being such a large decline in membership that parties have had since the 1950s and if their was state funding there would be greater expectations on how the parties spend their money.
With the top court restoring the status quo that existed before the Finance Act, 2017 was passed in statutes, we go back to the question of the funding of political parties. The issue of the funding of political parties has been long discussed, requiring urgent reforms. Several committees through the years since 1998 have suggested state ...
With respect to the empirical cases in which the introduction of state funding to political parties failed (i.e. Britain and pre-1988 France), I will thus consider whether this happened because parties feared the potential costs of this reform (e.g. with respect to opposing competitors or the electorate in chapters 9 and 10). ...
Evaluate the view the UK political parties should be funded by the state. Introduction I am Against state funding political parties. Passive Point and Evidence. A02 Aggressive Point and evidence. A02 A03- Why the Aggressive point is stronger. Main parties depend on large donors to donate to them.
An A* Essay evaluating the view of whether or not political parties should be funded by the state. Weighing up for/against state funding. ... Documents similar to "Assess the view that political parties should be state funded " are suggested based on similar topic fingerprints from a variety of other Thinkswap Subjects
BRIEF 627 words. EDEXCEL Government & Politics "Evaluate the view that political parties should be funded by the state (30)" essay plan. Please note that this essay plan is different from my others published in the sense that there is no analysis column, hence the reduced price. Unit 1: UK Politics Topic 1: Democracy and Participation
Should political parties be funded by the state? Simon Brown and Nick Gallop debate the issue. On a superficial level, a claim that the state funding of political parties is nothing more than the forced transfer of taxed income to disconnected Westminster elites seems credible. But a look below the surface reveals a compelling case that state ...
Transparency in Political Party Funding: Mandate political parties to disclose all sources of funding, including details of donors and the amounts received. Ensure that this information is easily accessible to the public and regularly updated. Introduce an upper limit on the amount that can be donated to political parties to curb the
About : State funding of elections refers to a system in which the government provides financial support to political parties and candidates to facilitate their participation in the electoral process. This funding is typically derived from public resources and aims to reduce the reliance on private donations, minimizing the potential influence ...
Introduction. -political parties are the mechanism by which citizens can be actively involved in the tasks of shaping policy & deciding how to govern society. -today 2 party dominant system. -current system = no state funding, parties win elections based on loyalty of membership, policies, income and reputation.
All the Yes points: Corruption is one of the most damaging elements in politics, as it involves a democratically elected…. At the moment, the amount of money needed to run a successful election campaign prevents new parties…. Why should parties be funded out of the public purse when there are so many other pressing concerns,….
Why state-funded political parties would be a disaster for our democracy Open Democracy 29 March 2012 Why Fund the Politically Bankrupt? Tim Black spiked 28 March 2012 State funding for political parties should be scrapped not increased Harry Phibbs Daily Mail 22 November 2011 State funding for parties will guarantee sleaze: look at Europe
Question: Evaluate whether state funding for political parties should be introduced in the UK Introduction: Political parties require income to fund their activities. ... and which parties should get such money. This essay will argue against state funding. Points For (note: for evaluative purposes, aim to pair up' points for and against ...
Would improve the performance of parties by allowing them to function more effectively, as they would have to waste less time and energy on fund raising. Disadvantages. Providing parties with state income may weaken their links to larger society, which are formed by seeking financial and electoral support.
Discuss the view that there should be more state funding for political parties. Thomas Smith 6F3. Parties in the United Kingdom today are funded in a variety of ways. Parties rely on a number of things to generate income. Party membership, trade unions and donations from wealthy individuals are all examples of ways parties do this.
A Level Government and Politics Essay Question. MkmoU1. Hi. I am struggling to write to an essay. The essay question is. 'Evaluate the extent to which political parties should be funded by the state.' - 30 marks. For some reason I keep on blanking out and I don't know how to structure my paragraphs, what points I can use and how to go about ...
2 - often members fund parties - like in labours case with trade unions making up most of their. monetary donations. Therefore, introducing a state funded system of funding political parties would reduce the power of members and the influence of groups like trade unions with labour as it is an unfair advantage.
"The president's plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn't been done since F.D.R.'s New Deal," said John McEntee, a former White House ...
It was a wordless acknowledgment of how politically difficult the issue has become for his party. The bans or restrictions that Republicans have enacted in more than 20 states are broadly unpopular .
Therefore, state funding would potentially end the dependence of political parties on wealthy donors, parties would be more willing to engage with the voter, and would remove the great disparity in resources available to different- sized parties that encourages the two party system. State funding should be provided in order to potentially end ...