In democracies around the world, the role of money in politics is giving rise to serious concerns. The Citizens United decision by the US Supreme Court has been criticised for its potential to deny "giving voters a genuine choice and giving candidates a fair chance" in that "it threatens to further marginalize candidates without strong financial backing or extensive personal resources, thereby in effect narrowing the political arena". [Director of OSCE]. In the US there have been a number of unsuccessful attempts to limit the costs of fighting elections, and reduce dependence of candidates on money. There is a very informative CRS paper available here.
In the UK the amounts of money concerned are significantly lower - but the debate has been active since the 1990s. In recent months the Committee on Standards published a report on "Political Party Finance". Last week the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee also published a short report in which it concludes: -
"Despite reforms in recent years to the funding of political parties, public concern about the integrity of current arrangements remains. All the main political parties have asserted the importance of resolving the issues around political party finance, but there is a notable lack of progress towards reaching such a resolution. This concerns us.
In this Report we highlight the opportunity represented by the publication, on 22 November 2011, of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on Political Party Finance, to achieve a cross-party solution to the issue. The Government should set out how it intends to achieve a balanced, non-partisan solution, before public confidence in politics is further undermined by some future scandal."
In previous centuries there were concerns of politicians bribing voters. As a result in the UK we have laws to deal with "treating". One Council's website has a list of definitions
•Bribery - candidates or their supporters cannot give money or offer gifts to pursuade you to vote a particular way.
•Treating - candidates or their supporters cannot directly or indirectly give or provide food, drink or entertainment in order to influence a voter.
•Intimidation - candidates or their supporters cannot use undue influence or intimidation of any kind to influence the way you vote.
But the influence of money is greater today. Free Speech is important - but is it undermined if only the very rich can afford to meaningly participate?
(Note - hyperlinks - underlined text, will take you to relevant information and documents)
Showing posts with label treating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label treating. Show all posts
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Thursday, 18 March 2010
Treating
Student elections are currently underway. I'm always pleased to see young people actively participating in elections, though I've seen some practices that would not be tolerated in local or national elections. For examples the offering of sweets to voters!So for my law students participating inn student elections - a bit of legislative background.
(1)A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of treating.
(2)A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment or provision to or for any person—
(a)for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting; or
(b)on account of that person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting.
(3)Every elector or his proxy who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment or provision shall also be guilty of treating.
(2)A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment or provision to or for any person—
(a)for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting; or
(b)on account of that person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting.
(3)Every elector or his proxy who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment or provision shall also be guilty of treating.
I knew one MP who would never a buy a round of drinks in his constituency - on the grounds that he might be accused of treating. I guess his party workers felt it didn't apply as they were already committed to voting for him - but it was probably best to be cautious!
Other information on election offences can be found at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/election_offences/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

