The issue of party financing seems to have raised little interest with the two main political parties. Nor has the public exhibited particular eagerness for it. This might be sympto-matic of a resigned electorate to the status quo or to a general feeling that nothing would really change, not even with a legal structure intended to control such financing.
On the other hand, Alternattiva Demokratika has been clamouring for such a law since its very inception as a political party
Backbencher Franco Debono demonstrated keen enthusiasm in the subject (he raised it in his very first speech in Parliament in 2008). He publicly expressed his frustration that a Bill based on German and UK legislation, which he drafted with the blessing of the government, was eventually ignored by the same authorities when they were obliged to submit a draft Bill to Europe’s anti-corruption watchdog (Greco).
Greco found the draft Bill submitted by the Maltese authorities to be inadequate and sent it back to be revised.
I have not seen Dr Debono’s draft but from his comments and reading what was reported by newspapers one can deduce that its main aims are:
Parties must register all donations exceeding €30,000 from one source in a calendar year.
When donations add up to more than €7,000, the names of the donors must be given to the Electoral Commissioner and made public.
Donations of more than €50,000 would not be permissible.
Some commentators have derided Dr Debono’s commitment to this reform stating that there are more urgent matters facing the country such as the economy, education, health, the environment, etc. Name it and they all stand in some priority over party financing.
However, it should also be noted that this issue has been dragging on for many years and constantly being pushed back down the list of priorities to be eventually left to fade away from the political scenario.
Party financing can distort the electoral process and is a major motive for corruption. However, in many countries, both developed and developing, the policy of party financing has proved difficult to implement even where there are regulations accompanied by independent watchdogs. In reality, the effectiveness of these watchdogs depends primarily on the commitment of the main political parties to ethical behaviour.
A report on Money In Politics, commissioned by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, had found that “The social and political costs of corruption are well-known and a majority of political and civic leaders recognise that many of the problems related to political corruption stem from deficiencies within the political parties themselves”.
The report also states: “One of the great challenges facing political reformers is that little is known about the details of money in political parties or campaigns. Political party financing patterns are extremely opaque and the decisions about raising and spending money are usually controlled and managed by only a few individuals. Relatively few politicians could provide concrete details about party funding operations.”
Dr Debono’s commitment to reform is therefore most commendable. But perhaps he is a little naïve to think that mere legislation can solve the problem. I am convinced that political parties are already wracking their brain to devise ways and means how to circumvent the main provisions of the draft Bill if (as seems most likely) it sees the light of the day before the next election.
For example, how can Dr Debono’s law guarantee that political parties do not open accounts in banks in the name of various private individuals where they can then deposit donations and spend money on campaigns far beyond the capping envisaged in the draft Bill? How will Dr Debono’s Bill guarantee that no hand-to-hand donations are made that are not registered as political hand-outs?
Indeed, there exist so many loopholes for those with some creative thinking.
One of the famous political scandals in British history concerned the practice of granting honours (including knighthoods) in exchange for contributions to party funds. In the early 20th century, both Conservatives and Liberals (the two main parties at the time) indulged in the practice.
Under Lloyd George as Prime Minister it was done more blatantly and on a bigger scale than ever. However, most historians are agreed that the Conservative outcry at the extent of the scandal involved a double standard. The Tories were not really upset at the sale of honours per se. They simply wanted a bigger share of the proceeds for their own party.
Probably this practice still goes on up to the present day, though more discreetly.
One of the mains recommendations made in the report mentioned earlier is the following: “Every country has its unique set of challenges related to party financing and corruption, arising from its own political history, party evolution and challenges related to both human and financial capital. Approaches to party finance in each country must be based on a thorough understanding of the particular role money plays in politics there; solutions are only credible to the extent they are country specific.”