We need to talk frankly about political party funding
The latest furore about political party donations is yet another manifestation of an ongoing issue. It is not, sadly, anything new. At present it is predictably being reduced to the actions of individuals, but the real problem lies in the political system rather than with particular MPs. The problem with political donations is inherently structural.
Party funding is crucially important in building trust in the political system. People must be confident their votes are as important as those of large donors. Current evidence suggests this is not the case: public trust surveys from Victoria University of Wellington show party funding is consistently distrusted by 70-75 per cent of New Zealanders.
There are numerous reasons, other than natural scepticism towards politics. Not least are concerns that private donations lead to policy capture: that vested interests buy political influence. We would not expect to see the kinds of links that, for example, the United States National Rifle Association has with the Republican Party (annual contributions of about US$1 million to senators and Congressmen), but are we confident we don’t have people buying a seat at the political table?
Our two biggest parties have private clubs for funding – whether this is Labour’s President’s Club or National’s Cabinet Club – which do not promote the openness needed to ensure individuals are not unduly influencing policy. The typical response is that these clubs grant political access rather than political influence. The same rationale is offered in the United Kingdom, in defence of the ‘Leaders Club’, which buys anyone willing to donate £50,000 to the Conservative Party meetings with Prime Minister Theresa May. The problem is that, even assuming it is true, the line between access and influence is far too porous for anyone to confidently believe it cannot be crossed.
Building on this, there is unease that some votes are worth more to political parties than others. We know from research last year that more than half of political party donations came from contributions above $15,000.
A ‘gold membership’ for Labour’s President’s Club costs $5000 a year. Despite arguments at its 2017 launch that anyone was ‘‘welcome to join’’, it is difficult to see who actually has the money.
Nobody can expect political parties not to maximise the funding opportunities at their disposal. It is therefore crucial to change the way we think about those opportunities. There is a different way.
Aradical approach is 100 per cent public funding for political parties. This is not a new idea – Transparency International New Zealand raised it in 2013 in its assessment of the country’s national integrity system – and it has some obvious objections. Will taxpayers want to fund political parties? We should ask them.
We know New Zealanders do not trust current arrangements and should find out the extent to which people will feel more connected to parties that do not rely on large donations or exclusive memberships.
Public funding need not be a huge burden: the total funds parties raise amount to 0.0001 per cent of the government budget. It also builds on current arrangements that make public funding available for party electoral broadcasts, which at the moment stands at $4m.
Furthermore, public funding would enable party supporters to refocus their energies from fundraising to developing public policy.
Most importantly, we need a free and frank discussion on the merits and drawbacks of our current model. The issue is not going to go away and the more we focus on individual behaviour, the more we ignore the systemic flaws in funding. The problem of political party funding is a wholly unnecessary evil. We need to address the system, rather than simply point the finger.
Associate Professor Macaulay has written extensively about integrity, ethics and anticorruption.