ANC ‘bulldozes’ party funds bill
• It ignores opposition to amendment that will benefit it the most
The ANC has “bulldozed” the adoption of a bill by the home affairs committee that will give it a greater share of the available funding for political parties and independent representatives than previously provided for.
This will prove a boon for the party, which has experienced financial difficulties, though it says its finances have stabilised.
The ruling party overrode objections from the DA and smaller parties such as the ACDP, FF+ and IFP in adopting the Electoral Matters Amendment Bill, which will change the formula for the funding of political parties. Small parties will thus see a sharp reduction in their allocations, while the ANC will get more.
The bill was adopted by the committee on Friday, with the ANC using its majority to push it through. It will now be debated in the National Assembly.
Currently, in terms of the Political Party Funding Act, 66.6% of available funds are allocated based on the proportional representation of the party in the legislature and 33.3% on an equitable basis.
The bill that has been adopted by the committee changes this to 90% proportional, which benefits large parties, and 10% equitable.
During public hearings, independent elections expert Michael Atkins gave a breakdown of what each represented political party would get under the adopted formula. The ANC’s share would rise from 43.38% to 53.92% and the DA from 18.32% to 20.9%, while those of small parties would decline more than 50% in most cases.
The budget allocated R322m for the Represented Political Parties Fund for 2024/25.
Atkins said the committee’s adoption of the proposed formula was a “total travesty” that the ANC had “bulldozed” through.
DA spokesperson on home affairs Adrian Roos called it a “money grab by the ANC”.
He argued that the change in the formula was a substantive amendment that did not flow out of the decision of the Constitutional Court that independent candidates should be allowed to contest national and provincial elections. This meant that the Political Party Funding Act had to be changed to accommodate the funding of independent representatives.
Roos said a substantive change would require a different parliamentary process involving more public consultation.
He said in an interview that a comprehensive assessment would have to be made of the impact of political funding before a change to the formula was made. “This is just the ANC deciding they want more money,” he said.
Even though the DA would receive more under the adopted formula, it had accommodated itself to the existing one, Roos said, and objected to the amendment in principle.
The ANC argued during public hearings that the proposed 90/10 allocation method would unfairly and disproportionately advantage independents and parties with only one representative. It proposed that every independent representative and party that won a seat in parliament get 0.25% per seat they occupy of the available allocation of any funds.
The committee did change a clause that would have given the president what critics said were “unfettered powers” to determine the annual upper limit for donations to political parties and independent representatives, the limit on donations from foreign entities and the minimum threshold amount for the disclosure of donations.
The current act requires a National Assembly resolution for
the president to make regulations, whereas the new bill proposes that it would only require his consultation with the home affairs committee and minister.
During the public hearings, Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution executive secretary Lawson Naidoo said these proposed powers were a regressive step for executive accountability.
“Parliament should retain its power to determine when the regulations should be amended and the different thresholds adjusted,” he said.
The committee decided that the president would only be able to make regulations once parliament had passed a resolution.
Roos and Atkins pointed to one of the critical consequences of the bill as being that when President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the bill into law there would be no donation limits and disclosure thresholds to implement.
This would have to await a resolution of parliament and the gazetting of the regulations by the president, neither of which would be subject to time pressures to act.