Who’s paying for parties’ campaigns?

Whatever the two main political parties say, most would share Alternattiva Demokratika’s concern over excessive spending in the election campaign and its belief over the close ties they may have with big business.

There would seem to be only one way in which the electorate could possibly get convinced that the two large parties are not receiving financial assistance from big business – through the enactment of a law controlling their financing.

And even such a law would not provide a cast-iron guarantee against the donation of excessive donations to political parties but, at least, it would go a long way towards laying the institutional infrastructure necessary to stem any blatant transgressions.

The issue has been pending for many years but legislators have not found the time to tackle it in a serious manner, preferring, it seems, to hurl accusations at each other at every election rather than regulate themselves, as the electorate would like them to do.

In November 2010, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi promised that a law regulating party financing would be in place before the next general election. Over two years have passed, and, although a Bill has already been drafted, it did not make it to the final enactment stage in the legislature that has just ended.

Despite all the rhetoric on the importance of ensuring transparency in party financing, the commitment to see the Bill through was evidently not strong enough.

Now both parties are promising that it will be among the first laws they would push through if they are elected. Meanwhile, as has happened in past elections, it is likely that a number of candidates will spend well beyond the limit allowed by law.

In one European Parliament election, two candidates had at least admitted to exceeding the legal expenditure limit but 12 others, from the two main parties, had refused to give an explanation of their campaign expenditure.

Their attitude had been widely resented. Quite rightly, voters expect candidates to regulate themselves and stick to the rules.

What was most ironic in this case was that the Electoral Commission said at the time that it had no intention of verifying expenditure but only to gather it and make it available to the public. Yet, the public had a right to know which candidates had breached the law.

This goes to prove our earlier remark that rules and regulations do not provide a guarantee of transparency. In fact, it has been proven abroad that these are often honoured in the breach.

Over the years, serious party financing scandals have rocked establishments in a number of European countries including France, Germany, Spain and Belgium. Transparency transgression is one reason for the growing widespread distrust in politicians. One government had even collapsed after a funding scandal.

Donations to parties over a certain amount ought to be prohibited. On January 11, the Labour leader denied a claim by his counterpart that the Labour Party had already spent €1 million on the campaign.

The Nationalist Party’s campaign may have been on a lower scale than Labour’s, at least up to now, but both parties appear to be spending a great deal of money to finance their activities.

Where are they getting the money from? Surely, the €500,000 they each raised in their last marathon stints is nowhere near enough to grease their campaigns.

So, who’s footing the bill?