Discussion Thread: Cap political donations

This is an archived discussion thread for the "Cap Donations" voting page. Voting, and this discussion thread, have now closed.

Rhodri 1 month ago

2 people liked this.
In a democracy there should be no private donations to political parties so nobody can buy the policies or politicians they want as is the case in the British system today, but a (very low) cap would be better than what we have today.

tdemo 1 month ago

1 person liked this.
Yes! Cap them at zero, and make Parties depend on their individual members' subscriptions for all their income.

ekklesia 1 month ago

3 people liked this.
Too many people are switched off by politics because for them it simply means a parliamentary game dominated by the major parties - which have become over reliant on big money interests. Limiting and registering party donations would be a major step forward in this respect. Financial reform needs to go hand-in-hand with Proportional Representation, to ensure that all votes count, and that smaller groups and independents get a proper say. Equally, people should have the right to have their ‘none of the above' registered in the ballot box and on the public election record. Much of what passes for apathy is really dissent, and both government and the principal opposition need to hear this. Politics is about sharing power, redistributing it, and using it for good. The representative system needs to become participatory and accountable to a growing and mature civic system, involving people of all beliefs/faiths and none. You don't have to wait for the system to reform to act politically for peace, social justice and environmental action - but without such reforms, the levers of change will grow rusty. Public debate and involvement should be driving parliamentary, mainstream media and political mechanisms, not the other way round.

Brian Riley 1 month ago

Capping political donations would be an important first step but I suspect powerful interests would find ways to disguise their contributions by using intermediaries.
If parties are not funded by taxpayers they will be funded by those who do not have taxpayers' interests at heart.
I would favour funding parties, from taxes, in proportion to the number of votes they get in parliamentary elections - including for candidates not elected - with the proviso that a party would need at least say 4 MPs in order to get funding. This would encourage politicians to address the concerns of voters even in constituencies where they are not strong. There would have to be an independent body to determine the total funding.
Any other funding source would of course have to be illegal.

JM Munilla 2 weeks ago

2 people liked this.
All political parties need funding, doinations, where do you think the candidates make their expenses in an expensive city where all the money working reasonable hours is going to pay the bills? to keep a roof over your head? I would allow funding to political parties, with funding to cover political campaign expenses, candidature costs. Have you ever tried to be a candidate for the ideals you believe by heart? Not everybody is rich to affort a political campaign and not every body has the capacity to be a candidate or even a good politician! You just try!

stephenbooth 1 week ago

I'd go for individual contributions only (no corporate sponsorship) and a cap on how much an individual can contribute in a year (with maybe a higher cap for party members). Make political parties work to get small amounts from many people rather than large amounts from a few.Jim Halcrow 1 week ago

Why not levy taxes on a very progressive scale on these donations?

The Atomium 6 days ago

This may not be the sexiest idea here, but keeping corporate money out of politics may be one of the most important challenges that we are going to have to face, sooner or later.

These days we have plenty of power as consumers or investors; look at the cheap prices we have been enjoying for years. Our free market system works well in that respect, but corporations have grown ever more powerful, and ever more competitive with their rivals. Their money now buys them the ears of governments and oppositions alike, and the voices of the ordinary citizens are drowned out.

This would be a good step towards giving more power to the citizen, and away from the corporations. It's not particularly a moral issue, they're not evil, they're just doing what they were designed to do: gain competitive edge, make profits, raise share price. But that still doesn't mean that we should let them.

drgreat 6 days ago

All the major political parties are currently struggling to pay the bills associated with a modern media campaign. The amount of financial support coming in from party members and grass roots support has diminished as party membership and direct political involvement has declined (people now tend to join single interest groups such as Greenpeace, Countryside Alliance, etc. rather than a political party). This leaves us in the situation that large single donations have a proportionately larger influence than in the past, which is open to abuse. However, if we simply limit the maximum amount of any single donation, we simply exacerbate the problems of funding still further.

Any capping of donations needs to be tied with further legislation that ensures some kind of level playing field between political parties. We have to be careful to avoid a situation where political parties do not have the financial capability to adequately communicate with the electorate, or where one party has a significant financial advantage over the others.

Unfortunately, the issue is more complicated than just simply capping donations. I believe that any solution must be tied to other, significant, complementary reforms (some of which are included in the lists above).

Brian Riley 3 days ago

Caps on donations would encourage chicanery: a billionaire could give £50 000 to each of 20 friends, relatives or dependants with instructions to forward that amount to his party under their own names. 

If we as taxpayers are unwilling to advance our interests by funding our parties we cannot be surprised if the rich step in to advance theirs.

It would be better if an independent body were to determine before each election a total amount to be paid annually, out of taxes, to fund parties; any other party funding to be illegal. This amount would be divided in proportion to the total vote, including the votes to candidates not elected. Parties would then pay more attention than they now do to constituencies where they are not strong. To gain any funding, a party would have to win at least, say, four seats: this would stop present party members deserting to stand as independents.

The disadvantage might be that parties would become more populist, giving more influence to the owners of tabloids.

Justin Kirby 2 days ago
Capping donations to parties ought to include an absolute cap the amount of money available to a party. The big ones have so much they can fund huge PR campaigns. PR is the skill by which expert psychologists and advertisers are able to convince large numbers of people (i.e. us) of whatever they are being paid to convince us of. The actual rational backing for the party belief is irrelevant. So the whole show is a free market, with votes going to whoever can pay the most.
With an absolute cap, each party has a more level playing field and they have to argue on principle, policy and effectiveness.

jamesgraham 1 month ago

From Twitter via BackType

I've voted for "Cap political donations" on #POWER2010:http://www.power2010.org.uk/votes/entry/cap-political-donations