In order for democracy to be healthy -we are told- it is essential that political parties be allowed to flourish. In order that political parties be able to flourish it is essential that they exist. In order to exist it is essential that they are funded. Since therefore the citizen (or subject) has an interest in a healthy democracy it is in her interest to fund political parties; and since she might not be able to discern her own interest with the clarity of the political classes it is best all round that the funding be non-voluntary and via the usual mechanism of confiscatory taxation. This, or something like it, seems to be the argument in favour of the “state” funding of political parties: an argument that erupts intermittently within the United Kingdom chattering classes.
The argument is nonsense of course, not least because it assumes that the current political parties are the only ones that might exist. Of course it might be the case that democracy requires the existence of some political parties. But why these political parties? Political parties are human institutions, and like all human institutions they evolve and die - to be replaced by other institutions. If the Labour Party, or the Conservative Party, is unable to finance itself without reaching unbidden into my pay packet then tough. Why should I be required to pay for the continued existence of an institution whose politics and values I do not share (I already do that once with the BBC)? It is surely absurd that a political party should offer itself as custodian of the nation’s finances without being able to manage its own.
There is, in the UK, a “consensus” between the major parties that some form of public funding might be desirable. Well there would be wouldn’t there? It is a very felicitous consensus that includes those who would benefit from the policy and yet excludes those who would pay for it.
Is it, anyway, the case that a healthy democracy requires the constant existence of legislators? Would an interruption to the legislative process, for five years say, be such a disaster? It would for the legislators perhaps, but not for the rest of us. The rise of the professional politician has seen an unwelcome expansion in the powers of the state and how could it be otherwise? The only people who are fit to be sent to the House of Commons are those who really don’t want to be there. There is much controversy here over whether MPs should have second jobs. But of course they should: the second job should be “being an MP”.
Surely the main issue is not where the funds come from but that the funds a party should be allowed to spend, whatever the source, should be capped to a level realistically affordable by the least well financially endowed parties so that a party who is cash rich cannot, in effect, buy their way into power?
Your argument is not with the idea of funding political parties, merely with a mechanism you yourself have invented.
If every citizen was allowed to register as belonging to a party, and party funding was based on percentage of registered membership, then new parties can easily be funded merely by acquiring members, and existing parties that lost membership would lose funding.
Dave’s idea of funding existing parties and new parties, based on members registering, seems right to me. If political parties do not receive public funding, they will look for money from lobbies, big business and from the rich.
Public funding gives parties which represent the interests of the poor and the middle class a chance to compete, in theory at least.
“The argument is nonsense of course, not least because it assumes that the current political parties are the only ones that might exist.” Most definitely. There is such a static-state vein of thinking to much of these sort of arguments.
As for the restrictive arguments…
Don’t the poor and middle class “compete” by going to the polls? Don’t they have a responsibility to seek out information and make judgments about what is in their own best interest for themselves? Are there not many poor and middle class people who have many similar interests as the rich and big business? Why should funding be taken from others, and in the case of the middle class, from themselves to promote policies that they do not agree with? Having a big megaphone definitely has it’s advantages, but a lot of ridiculous political nonsense has gone far without big money behind it, e.g. Marxism, 911 Truthers and other conspiracy foolishness. I think that in order for democracy to be healthy, freedom of speech must be protected above all. Campaign finance rules in the US have great potential to erode that freedom.
I couldn’t disagree more with WTP about campaign financing. There are reams and reams of data that show that corporate financial influence on elections breeds corruption. By making the financing of election campaigns public, it frees politicians from necessarily relying (as they do now) on wealthy donors.
Of course I think that free speech needs to be protected, but guaranteeing everyone the right to voice their opinion and engage in public debate does not imply guaranteeing everyone the right to spend as much money as they want on whatever they want to spend it on, including misleading political advertisements.
In response to Andy’s point that it looks problematic to tie public financing to the current set of political parties (be it in the US or UK), I am sympathetic to the claim that this is not the best means. But that doesn’t mean public financing of elections is or should be off the table, only that a different institutional mechanism is needed.
Mr. Murray,
One might just as easily point out that there are reams of data that show government involvement in private domains breeds even more corruption. As for “but guaranteeing everyone the right to voice their opinion and engage in public debate does not imply guaranteeing everyone the right to spend as much money as they want on whatever they want to spend it on”. And your right to restrict their rights is what? What gives you the right to control how someone else spends their money? I’m no fan of George Soros and find his influence contrary to much of what I believe, but I would not seek to restrict him from having his say or funding whomever he likes.
And to one of the points of this article, “why these political parties?…Why should I be required to pay for the continued existence of an institution whose politics and values I do not share”, as one who does not identify significantly enough with any party, why should any of my money go to support any existing one?
“…it frees politicians from necessarily relying (as they do now) on wealthy donors”, no, it will now cause politicians to rely on incumbent politicians who control the laws on how the money is spent. To me, that is an even worse situation.
Well, there are two responses that occur to me regarding your question about rights to limit rights (though it strikes me that this quickly becomes a very odd way of talking). The first response is that US law has held repeatedly that content-neutral restrictions on speech are, in general, allowable and consistent with the first amendment. A limit on private financing of campaign commercials is just such a content-neutral restriction. Its justification is that it serves the larger social goal of helping to assure fair elections and genuinely representative democratic decision-making.
A more abstract response answers the question, what makes it possible that I have any kind of determinate rights governing the earning and spending of money at all? The answer, of course, is the existence of the institutions of civil society, including democratic means for creating, enforcing, and adjudicating disputes about these rights. Now, since these institutions make possible determinate property rights in the first place, it is consistent with this set of property rights, and other rights, to limit them in such a way as to allow the continued existence of those very same democratic institutions.
I want to address the very last sentence of your post, where you claim that public funding of elections would make office-seekers beholden to incumbent politicians. I say, only if funding is at the discretion of those incumbent politicians, which would be insane. We already have all kinds of formulas for more-or-less objectively determining funding for all sorts of things, and any system of publicly funding elections would necessarily be like that.
Mr. Murray,
I don’t know where to begin. Not to start a legal argument, but I think the Supreme Court’s recent decision on McCain-Feingold gives pause to the idea that “US law has held repeatedly…”, not that my argument is based exclusively on US law. As for a “larger social goal”, as defined by whom? To me the much larger social goal is that people be allowed to pursue their own goals without interference by those who think they know better. We are speaking of someone’s right to speak when and where they wish. That right does not interfere with someone elses ability to act (vote).
“…these institutions make possible determinate property rights in the first place…”, well I most vehemently disagree. Institutions to not make rights possible. People exist, work, earn money, and acquire property. Institutions are only necessary when someone attempts to take those products of peoples’ efforts away from them. They exist to protect people’s property rights, not to define them.
As for your last sentence, “We already have all kinds of formulas for more-or-less objectively determining funding for all sorts of things, and any system of publicly funding elections would necessarily be like that.” Putting aside the vague language of much of your post, where does one obtain this “objectivity”? As defined by whom? As Milton Friedman once said, “Where do you find all these angels?”
It is difficult to imagine why Democracy would necessitate political parties. They are a means to an end, but surely not the only means. If they are currently in the business of generating and supporting candidates for office, then it may be that another mechanism can be found. Thomas Jefferson, who distrusted parties more than most, recommended a ward system for generating candidates for office. Something else may be possible.
Until something else comes along, parties will be involved and their sources of funding will go a great distance in determining their views and actions.