Election spend can be hidden -- corruption watchdog

Amhran Nua

An interesting article here...

A DAMNING new report finds corruption laws are outdated and fall short of international standards.

The Group of States Against Corruption in Europe (GRECO) says a number of criminal cases brought against corrupt public officials have been for revenue and tax-related offences, rather than bribery or corruption. And it warns that laws governing election spending are in danger of becoming no more than "a paper exercise".

GRECO's report said existing laws could allow political parties and election candidates to find ways to keep their finances secret.

The corruption watchdog warns the lack of proper scrutiny "is bound to breed public cynicism".

Despite the good job done by ethics watchdog, the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), further steps need to be taken to make political funding more transparent.

Political parties should be forced to publish annual accounts, GRECO says.

Reveal

And it said that unless laws relating to election spending are changed candidates and parties could exploit the system and never fully reveal the amounts splashed out.

Election spending limits only come into play when the election day is announced.

But GRECO said this loophole could allow candidates and parties to 'frontload' their outlay by spending vast amounts of money -- which will never be disclosed to the public -- before the election is called.

It said local authorities should no longer be left fully responsible for candidates' spending in local elections.

The Director of Public of Prosections (DPP) was also criticised for his failure to bring charges against election candidates.

In a number of cases examined, SIPO believes political funding laws have been broken. But the DPP interpreted the law differently and chose not to bring forward a prosecution.

So as I understand it this allows those in a position to call the elections (the government) to spend all of their election funds before actually calling the election, allowing them to run their campaigns by paying in advance. This represents a clear and unequivocal advantage over other parties in Irish elections, which should be stopped.

Liam Byrne

Amhran Nua wrote: »

An interesting article here...


So as I understand it this allows those in a position to call the elections (the government) to spend all of their election funds before actually calling the election, allowing them to run their campaigns by paying in advance. This represents a clear and unequivocal advantage over other parties in Irish elections, which should be stopped.

Are you surprised ? Sure didn't one of them leg it up to the Park at some ungodly hour to get the president to dissolve the Dail, in order to gain an advantage while the other parties were still asleep in bed ?

Victor

Amhran Nua wrote: »

So as I understand it this allows those in a position to call the elections (the government) to spend all of their election funds before actually calling the election, allowing them to run their campaigns by paying in advance. This represents a clear and unequivocal advantage over other parties in Irish elections, which should be stopped.

While it does confirm some advantage, it doesn't confirm and absolute advantage. Some costs incurred before the election is called will be counted against the limits.

Sleepy

To be fair, while there's an advantage of knowing the precise timing, how many General Elections come as a shock to the oposition? I would like to know if pre-election spending is subject to the same donation limits though, i.e. can a contributor to a party defray expenses of this type to a higher level than otherwise allowed.

Choke

Meh, Fine Gael had a ton of posters around my area for the month before the election, so it isn't as if it's really negatively affecting their ability to compete.

Victor

Choke wrote: »

Meh, Fine Gael had a ton of posters around my area for the month before the election, so it isn't as if it's really negatively affecting their ability to compete.

Elections are called about a month before polling day, so that would be right.

Some parties did try to steal a march on the local elections by putting up "public meeting" signs.

nesf

Victor wrote: »

Some parties did try to steal a march on the local elections by putting up "public meeting" signs.

The only people I see doing that in Cork are the various Socialist parties and/or their fronts. I don't think I've ever seen a mainstream party call for one outside of election periods (i.e. after an election has been announced).