Britain’s Campaign Finance Laws Leave Parties With Idle Money
|
Version 0 of 1. LONDON — When the U.K. Independence Party received a donation of 1 million pounds a few weeks ago — about $1.5 million — it seemed like a big lift heading into the British general election on Thursday. But the populist, anti-immigration party then faced an unusual problem: spending its cash. In a country where television election spots are banned, billboards are booked long before voting day, and other strict laws constrain election spending, that task proved so hard that the party says it is unlikely to use all the money before Britons go to the polls. Britain is not unusual in running short, relatively inexpensive campaigns. But few nations combine enthusiastic fascination with American-style politics — the governing Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party both hired top advisers to President Obama this election cycle — with campaign finance rules so stringent that they would seem better suited to City Council races in the United States. Hillary Rodham Clinton is aiming to raise at least $1 billion for her presidential campaign. Mr. Obama and his opponent in 2012, Mitt Romney, combined to spend nearly $2 billion. Mr. Obama’s campaign spent $25,000 on flower arrangements months before the general election even got underway; in 2008, his campaign shelled out at least $140,000 to companies that make American flags. In Britain, by contrast, each party is limited to spending $29.5 million in the year before the election. The last time around, in 2010, the Conservatives actually spent about $25 million, and Labour less than half that. American presidential candidates spent about as much money on raising money in 2012 — around $37 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — as the two main British parties spent on their entire campaigns in 2010. Reflecting the strict spending limits as well as a parliamentary system in which the outcome of a national election is determined in 650 constituencies, much of the campaigning in Britain remains local, with candidates pounding the streets, knocking on doors, issuing leaflets and sending mail. Even these expenditures have to be recorded in minute detail and submitted to the election authorities. Spending limits also apply to organizations like charities or unions that want to campaign ahead of elections. Justin Fisher, a professor of political science at Brunel University London, said the American system was seen in Britain “as the worst of all worlds,” focused on “raising money and not about getting ideas across.” Oliver Coppard, the Labour Party’s candidate in Sheffield Hallam, volunteered in New Hampshire during Mr. Obama’s campaign in 2012 and was struck by the resources available to American candidates — down to the number of bumper stickers, balloons and campaign leaflets. “I was pretty stunned by the number of garden signs and by the sheer volume of adverts on TV,” he said. A crucial difference with the United States lies in Britain’s ban on advertising on commercial television and radio. Instead, the parties are given pre-election broadcasts that are screened both on commercial television and by the British Broadcasting Corporation. They are also starting to spend considerable sums on digital advertising as they try to reach voters online and through social media. Complex rules also govern spending by the parties’ local candidates for the five months before the election. There is a ceiling of about $60,000, plus an amount calculated according to the number of voters in each region and whether they live in a rural or urban area. (In the United States last year, the 10 most expensive races for the 435 seats in the House of Representatives each ran up more than $8 million in total spending, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.) According to Matt Badcock, principal lecturer in sociology at Leeds Beckett University, British politicians spend less than half per vote what they did, in inflation-adjusted terms, at one point in the 19th century. The election of 1880, Mr. Badcock said, is thought to have cost more than £100 million in 2002 prices, as opposed to the £45.5 million spent by parties and their candidates locally in the weeks immediately before the 2010 British election. Some of the expenses incurred by 19th-century politicians, such as getting voters to register, have been taken over by the public authorities, he said. But vote-buying was so rife that a law was introduced in 1883 to curb the practice. Since then, election spending figures have tended to disprove the common belief that there is an inexorable “linear upward path for expenditure,” Mr. Badcock said, adding that politicians “don’t spend money where it is not going to be effective.” Mr. Fisher of Brunel University said that resources in individual electoral districts were “much better focused” than those devoted to national campaigning, generating “more bang for your buck.” While digital advertising offers new opportunities, Mr. Fisher said, so far “there is no evidence that it is making a big difference.” The U.K. Independence Party has spent money on its digital campaign in recent weeks but has few other options for a last-minute spending splurge, particularly since the prime billboard locations are already booked. “Obviously, we are not complaining,” said Gawain Towler, a senior official in the party. “We are not worried about the thought that we might have a couple of beans left after May 7.” |