State funding of political parties

?
  • Created by: meliasyd
  • Created on: 19-05-19 10:58

State funding of political parties

Advantages

  • Parties play key function in democracy: developing policy and recruiting candidates, they require sufficient funds in order to uphold this.
  • State funding would end dependence on wealthy donors eg. Bernie Ecclestone / 'Cash for Influence'.
  • The era of mass party membership + identification is over - parties can no longer rely on membership fees.
  • Would allow Labour Party to be free of trade union influence.
  • If parties had state funding matching their vote (as opposed to seats), this would encourage campaigning in all areas, not just marginal seats.
  • State funding would make limiting election spending easier - much of which is spent on advertisement.

Disadvantages

  • Funding based on existing share of votes would strengthen larger parties further and limit smaller parties from breaking through (especially with FPTP system).
  • People will object to taxes going to parties they do not support - especially extremist parties.
  • Firms and wealthy individuals still able to influence politicians, even i countries with state funding (more sketchy processes).
  • If there is secure public funding, parties may feel less need to reach out for support and recruit party members (laziness / complacency).
  • Parties will be less independent of the state and therefore party in government holds power to change funding rules to their advantage.
  • With access to the internet and people's ability to inform themselves about party activity and policy, the need for parties as informants is less necessary.

Evaluation

Although state funding of political parties may seem practical in order to establish even playing field and avoid outsider influence over policy, many ways that this could be exploited and could be to the detriment of the electorate.

Comments

No comments have yet been made