Last month, the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom were found guilty of having breached the spending limits for campaign funding. The penalty applied was a fine of £70,000 – this for errors in reported spending of more than £220,000 in a General Election.
According to recent reports, the funding irregularities could affect some 20 candidates, and indeed the Electoral Commission considers that the irregularities gave the Conservative Party a “realistic prospect of its candidates gaining a financial advantage over opponents”. Candidates are permitted to spend £30,700 for a General Election campaign each
The current parliamentary makeup for the United Kingdom is one which provides the government of a working majority of 17 MPs. This majority is 3 less than the number of MPs affected by the spending irregularities. The question which arises therefore, is whether or not a desultory fine of £70,000 is an adequate penalty (for a party which in 2013 had an income of more than £25m) when this situation may well have been directly responsible for the election of a Conservative government.
Looking at the amount of the fine, the £70,000 (although unprecedented) represents less that ½ % of the total national election budget for any party putting up a candidate in all 650 constituencies – less than half a percent! Surely any political party therefore which is capable of spending over £18m for a general election is hardly likely to be afraid of a penalty of £70,000. The fine is therefore significantly less than a slap of the wrist, it represents little more than a public rebuke. Given then that the impact of such financial irregularities could well be the way the country is run for the next five years – should the penalty not be a little more severe? If the Electoral Commission maintain a Spending Limit, it is surely to ensure some degree of parity between the political parties, and indeed, it represents the tacit recognition that the amount of money a party spends may well have a bearing on the outcome of the election. Should we therefore not police the spending of political parties in an Election period much more closely, and should the penalty not be a lot more severe?
In the case of the current UK Parliament, the Conservative party have 330 MPs, which means that they have an actual majority of 10 MPs (including sympathetic parties – a working majority of 17). If then the spending for even half of those candidates currently under investigation is considered to have had a material impact on the election, this would meant that had those spending limits not been breached, the Conservative party would have no majority, and therefore the political landscape of the United Kingdom would be vastly different. It is even possible to argue that under such conditions, (and assuming that no other political parties breached the Spending Limit) that the Conservative government ‘stole the election’. Such malfeasance therefore affects directly the way in which the country is run (and in this case, has determined whether or not a referendum was run concerning the future of Britain with regards to the European Union). Arguably, there is nothing which could have a greater impact on the lives of the citizens of the United Kingdom.
In which case, should not the penalty for the abuse of this system be greater than anything else? There is some scope on the British legal system for the prosecution of offences of ‘Misconduct in Public Office’, which permits the courts to sentence those guilty of offences and which carries a maximum sentence of Life Imprisonment. In which case, given that the impact of electoral fraud is one which impacts all residents of the United Kingdom, should not the maximum penalty be applied? In addition to which, it seems only logical that the election be declared null and void, and that all legislation passed since that election be stricken from the statute book and we start over. It may seem drastic to start again, however is it not worse to accept that an infringement has taken place and then not take steps to rectify the situation? The abuse of power in elections is an infringement on the rights of citizens to determine the future governance of their country, it is a departure from democracy and should not be acceptable to or accepted by any who support the process of democracy.
The Electoral Commission (responsible for policing the spending of political parties in the United Kingdom) can only currently act (it would seem) as an auditor of monies already spent: if therefore there is to be no redress in the political landscape following clear and evident abuse of power, then the Commission serves only to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. The absence of redress means that the risk of undertaking the breach is significantly less than any potential penalty – the Conservative government is nearly 40% of the way through their parliamentary term, having passed much in the way of life-changing legislation. With no risk of imprisonment or rectification of wrongs, why wouldn’t any political party do the same? This timid response sends a clear message to all who wish to hear: the British electoral system can be bought – and no-one will stop you (until it is too late). Future elections should be run in a manner in which all political spending is executed and managed centrally by a non-partisan civil authority. To have a truly fair system, each candidate should receive an equal amount from the state, which is spendable only on a specific set of authorised activities.
For now, the clock should be reset, the changes undone. The message should be sent that you cannot buy political influence, and you cannot expect the work done through abuse to remain – what is achieved by corruption should be wiped clean and replaced with democracy.