Funding Political Parties

Cookie_Monster

One of the things being discussed at length today as part of the fallout from Moriarty is that corporate donations to political parties should no longer be allowed.

Now I agree with that, as all sorts of favouritism etc can get involved. But the alternate suggestion is that the taxpayer should be picking up the tab for party funding. I cannot understand how people think this is an ok solution, why should taxpayers being paying money for this?

Why can't party members fund the party themselves, TD & councillors could be mandated to have a % of salary directed back to the party too.
Why do they feel the need for the taxpayer to fund party activities, what exactly would our money go to fund either?

blorg

Taxpayer funding proportional to votes received, together with spending restrictions, arguably leads to a more level playing field. Without it parties populated with rich individuals have a significant financial advantage. Berlusconi springs to mind although his media ownership is likely more of a factor.

Why pay politicians at all? We do it for the same reason.

Denerick

Why not have a system where every taxpayer is forced to make a tiny annual contribution to a political party of his her choice? So at the end of the tax year the citizen will face a choice. He/She will get a list of political parties where a maximum of 5 euro can go. The donation will be compulsory. If the citizen is dis-satisfied with the choices they can just tick 'distribute evenly' and so the 5 euro will be split between the parties and 'independant coalitions' which would help fund the political campaigns of independant politicians.

At the moment political parties pander to big businessmen and clearly provide favours in return for donations. Why not make them pander to ordinary citizens - who at most can only donate 5 euro - instead? It would create a steady funding base for political parties whilst also creating natural limits for expenditure. If two million taxpayers contributed 5 euro each then there would be 10 million euro to fund the political party system.

Denerick

blorg wrote: »

Taxpayer funding proportional to votes received, together with spending restrictions, arguably leads to a more level playing field. Without it parties populated with rich individuals have a significant financial advantage. Berlusconi springs to mind although his media ownership is likely more of a factor.

Why pay politicians at all? We do it for the same reason.

But that is unfair. If that were the case then FF would have had a significant spending advantage over FG and Labour, despite coming third in the eventual election. Rather a system that gauges political party support in any given year rather than based from a previous election that may or may not be indicative of the present mood.

Cookie_Monster

but why can't their members simply fund them, just like the unions or any other club. why should anybody have to fund organisations which have time and time again proven themselves corrupt, incompetent, childish, out of touch or elitist?

CokaColumbo

Denerick wrote: »

Why not have a system where every taxpayer is forced to make a tiny annual contribution to a political party of his her choice? ...The donation will be compulsory...

What right do you have to force somebody to spend a portion of their private property on something against their will?

I would not oppose banning corporate donations so long as environmental groups, unions etc. (potentially the worst offenders when it comes to special interests in government policy making) were limited in the same manner.

Denerick

CokaColumbo wrote: »

What right do you have to force somebody to spend a portion of their private property on something against their will?

I would not oppose banning corporate donations so long as environmental groups, unions etc. (potentially the worst offenders when it comes to special interests in government policy making) were limited in the same manner.

It levels the playing field, thats why. We have a parliamentary democracy which has political parties that need funding. Relying on corporate donations - whether from tycoons or unions - creates unhealthy and unnatural conflicts of interest.

Who better to fund our political system than taxpayers themselves, the citizens of this Republic?

blorg

CokaColumbo wrote: »

What right do you have to force somebody to spend a portion of their private property on something against their will?

Believe it or not this is already quite common, in this very state, even. It goes by the name of taxation. Political parties already receive millions of euro in state funding, incidentally.

CokaColumbo

Denerick wrote: »

It levels the playing field, thats why. We have a parliamentary democracy which has political parties that need funding. Relying on corporate donations - whether from tycoons or unions - creates unhealthy and unnatural conflicts of interest.

Who better to fund our political system than taxpayers themselves, the citizens of this Republic?

But if I have €5 what right do you have to force me to contribute that to the political party system? It's my money so therefore how it is spent is not your prerogative. It's my private property so hands off!

I agree, the citizens of Ireland should fund political parties. But what an indictment of politics it is when you want steal their money in order to sustain them. Why not have a system in which parties attempt to persuade the general public to voluntarily donate some of their personal wealth to them? It sure would be the humane thing to do!

Denerick

CokaColumbo wrote: »

But if I have €5 what right do you have to force me to contribute that to the political party system? It's my money so therefore how it is spent is not your prerogative. It's my private property so hands off!

To be fair, you already contribue way way more than 5 euro per annum to the State. If you spend 25 euro in a shop you've just contributed more to the exchecquer via VAT than you would have under this supposedly egregious 'theft' of your property.

CokaColumbo

Denerick wrote: »

To be fair, you already contribue way way more than 5 euro per annum to the State. If you spend 25 euro in a shop you've just contributed more to the exchecquer via VAT than you would have under this supposedly egregious 'theft' of your property.

You are absolutely right but that isn't the point and didn't answer my question.

Denerick

CokaColumbo wrote: »

You are absolutely right but that isn't the point and didn't answer my question.

I don't understand your question. You mightn't ever use a public bus but yet you are paying for a public bus via your taxes. Its the same assumption and I don't see the difference.

Callan57

What is the objection to full disclosure of all donatations to all and every political party & full identification of all these so called lobbyists and special interest groups etc etc
My problem is not that contributions were made but that they were made in secret. Why not let us have full accounts published for all political parties & full identification of where every cent comes from .... then we would be able to join the dots for ourselves and no need for tribunals.

We have to once and for all accept that if there ever was a concept of integrity in public life in this country it's long gone & 'with O'Leary in the grave'.
I

OhNoYouDidn't

CC is giving us the usual pie in the sky libertarian nonsese. The democratic system needs funding. Don't want to contribute to civic life? Move to Somalia.

But there is a valid question about why political parties don't fund themselves. I would be reluctant to replace corporate donations with state intervention personally.

But what is stopping a corporate bigwig joining FF and donating as much as he likes.

OhNoYouDidn't

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I would not oppose banning corporate donations so long as environmental groups, unions etc. (potentially the worst offenders when it comes to special interests in government policy making) were limited in the same manner.

They are corporate donations ffs, of course they would be limited as well.

CokaColumbo

Denerick wrote: »

I don't understand your question. You mightn't ever use a public bus but yet you are paying for a public bus via your taxes. Its the same assumption and I don't see the difference.

I agree, it's the same principal underlying tax in general, whether it's used to fund a state-run bus service, somebody's unemployment benefit, or the political party system. My question can be applied to all these things but to be relevant to the thread: if I have €5, what right do you have to decide how that €5 should be spent, in this case, to fund the political party system?

Shouldn't it be my choice and so shouldn't funding for political parties be done on a voluntary basis instead of a forceful one?

Cookie_Monster

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But what is stopping a corporate bigwig joining FF and donating as much as he likes.

well I would say that is fine as long as it is him doing it rather than his companies. Tax will have been paid on the money already and he is free to do with it as he wishes.
Or simply put in legal yearly limits to restrict that further also.

Denerick

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I agree, it's the same principal underlying tax in general, whether it's used to fund a state-run bus service, somebody's unemployment benefit, or the political party system. My question can be applied to all these things but to be relevant to the thread: if I have €5, what right do you have to decide how that €5 should be spent, in this case, to fund the political party system?

Shouldn't it be my choice and so shouldn't funding for political parties be done on a voluntary basis instead of a forceful one?

I find it interesting that you don't care if your taxes go into running a public transport system but do care if they result in a more clean and transparant political system.

You fund everything from your taxes; the roads, the schools, the hospitals, why not the parliament that makes the budgets that directs the taxes?

Not much we can argue from here as you are arguing from first principles and I'm arguing from the assumption that the first principle is pretty much the de facto state of affairs in the western world.

CokaColumbo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

CC is giving us the usual pie in the sky libertarian nonsese. The democratic system needs funding. Don't want to contribute to civic life? Move to Somalia.

Your post made me chuckle, especially the Somalia part. OhNoYouDidn't, you misrepresent libertarianism whenever you get half a chance. I do want to contribute to civic life; I just don't want to be forced to, and I also don't want a portion of the wealth that I create to be forcefully taken away from me and given to somebody who played no constructive part in creating it.

Denerick wrote: »

I find it interesting that you don't care if your taxes go into running a public transport system but do care if they result in a more clean and transparant political system.

You fund everything from your taxes; the roads, the schools, the hospitals, why not the parliament that makes the budgets that directs the taxes?

Not much we can argue from here as you are arguing from first principles and I'm arguing from the assumption that the first principle is pretty much the de facto state of affairs in the western world.

You misunderstand me. I don't agree with a state-run transport system and I do care where my taxes go in that regard. As I said already, my question can be applied to other areas where money is taken away from private individuals and used to fund common public services. I am simply asking, using this case which has been presented on this thread, what right does one have to take my €5 and spend it on the political party system when I might want to use that money for something else?

Shouldn't it be my choice what to do with that money and so shouldn't funding for political parties be done on a voluntary basis instead of a forceful one?

whiteonion

CokaColumbo wrote: »

What right do you have to force somebody to spend a portion of their private property on something against their will?

I would not oppose banning corporate donations so long as environmental groups, unions etc. (potentially the worst offenders when it comes to special interests in government policy making) were limited in the same manner.

The government in every country has the right to spend a portion of someones private property against this person's will. It's called taxes.

OhNoYouDidn't

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Your post made me chuckle, especially the Somalia part. OhNoYouDidn't, you misrepresent libertarianism whenever you get half a chance. I do want to contribute to civic life; I just don't want to be forced to, and I also don't want a portion of the wealth that I create to be forcefully taken away from me and given to somebody who played no constructive part in creating it.

So a stable political system, as well as education, healthcare, transport, tax breaks for business etc have no 'constructive part' in creating wealth?

The more I read of this Libertarian fantasy, the more I believe you are simply a bunch of freeloading tightarses.

Tax is a function in every state in the world bar Somalia. If you think that not paying tax is practical, off you go...

OhNoYouDidn't

whiteonion wrote: »

The government in every country has the right to spend a portion of someones private property against this person's will. It's called taxes.

... except Somaila....

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

... except Somaila....

Which is not a libertarian state.

blorg

@CC- it is not constructive on a thread about funding political parties to make arguments against taxation in general. Do it in another thread on taxation being illegitimate in general. This thread is about a more specific issue, so adress that.

Boskowski

Denerick wrote: »

Why not have a system where every taxpayer is forced to make a tiny annual contribution to a political party of his her choice? So at the end of the tax year the citizen will face a choice. He/She will get a list of political parties where a maximum of 5 euro can go. The donation will be compulsory. If the citizen is dis-satisfied with the choices they can just tick 'distribute evenly' and so the 5 euro will be split between the parties and 'independant coalitions' which would help fund the political campaigns of independant politicians.

At the moment political parties pander to big businessmen and clearly provide favours in return for donations. Why not make them pander to ordinary citizens - who at most can only donate 5 euro - instead? It would create a steady funding base for political parties whilst also creating natural limits for expenditure. If two million taxpayers contributed 5 euro each then there would be 10 million euro to fund the political party system.

Well the obvious question is why bother voting at all then since we all are effectively party members at this stage and our vote is already decided on an annual basis? Or would you fund party X and vote for party Y?

CokaColumbo

blorg wrote: »

@CC- it is not constructive on a thread about funding political parties to make arguments against taxation in general. Do it in another thread on taxation being illegitimate in general. This thread is about a more specific issue, so adress that.

I have attempted to confine my argument to the issue of forced funding for the political system. My question is relevant and I am making the point to Denerick that political parties should be funded by voluntary donations instead of forced donations. You are wrong to write that my contribution to this thread is not constructive.

Denerick

CokaColumbo wrote: »

I have attempted to confine my argument to the issue of forced funding for the political system. My question is relevant and I am making the point to Denerick that political parties should be funded by voluntary donations instead of forced donations. You are wrong to write that my contribution to this thread is not constructive.

Don't worry, I do understand your overall point, I accept I am probably in a minority.

What I like about the idea is the simplicity; no private citizen makes a donation greater than 5 euro; the funding base is well stretched out among the parties; natural spending limits are imposed on the basis of the size of the taxpaying public; parties are thus unable to appeal to special interest groups for funds in exchange for favours.

The present system is stupid and creates conflicts of interest.