Lebanese elections use the “block vote” for multi-candidate lists with a confessional requirement. That is, the list in each multi-member electoral district that obtains the most votes wins ALL of the seats in the district, which makes for high stakes in each district. The confessional requirement is that for a a given district, each multi-candidate list must have a pre-specified distribution of candidates from various religious groups. For example, in one district each list may have to have two Maronites, one Greek Orthodox, two Sunnis, and one Druze. Other districts have other confessional distributions. These requirements are determined to reflect the populations in each district, but the groups cant be represented in perfect proportion in any district. Disproportionalities can be smoothed out across districts, and the requirements are indeed drawn up nationally, but their specification is still fraught with considerable controversy.
The confessional requirements are in place to encourage the cooperation of the various religious/ethnic groups. No groups can “go it alone”, and with the block vote, they have to ensure that their coalitions are attractive to a large segment of voters in each group in each district. The system is likely to promote ethnic cooperation better than most alternatives. However, it also encourages coalitions of the type described in the below NYTimes article: collections of local patrons, or patrons that buy support from their own and other groups. Combined with the high-stakes of the block vote and it is not surprising that the elections are expensive.
The NYTimes writes:
…The parliamentary electoins here in June are shaping up to be among the most expensive ever held anywhere, with hundreds of millions of dollars streaming into this small country from around the globe.
Lebanon has long been seen as a battleground for regional influence, and now, with no more foreign armies on the ground, Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region are arming their allies here with campaign money in place of weapons. The result is a race that is widely seen as the freest and most competitive to be held here in decades, with a record number of candidates taking part. But it may also be the most corrupt.
Votes are being bought with cash or in-kind services. Candidates pay their competitors huge sums to withdraw. The price of favorable TV news coverage is rising, and thousands of expatriate Lebanese are being flown home, free, to vote in contested districts. The payments, according to voters, election monitors and various past and current candidates interviewed for this article, nurture a deep popular cynicism about politics in Lebanon, which is nominally perhaps the most democratic Arab state but in practice is largely governed through patronage and sectarian and clan loyalty.
…
As it happens, Lebanon has campaign spending limits this year for the first time, and the Arab world’s first system to monitor that spending, by the Lebanese chapter of Transparency International. But the limits — which are very loose to begin with — apply only in the last two months of the campaign. And they are laughably easy to circumvent, according to election monitors and Lebanese officials.
Reformers have tried and failed to introduce a uniform national ballot, which could reduce the influence of money and make the system less vulnerable to fraud. Currently, political parties or coalitions usually print up their own distinctive ballots and hand them to voters before they walk into the booth, making it easier to be sure they are getting the votes they have paid for.
For a couple of weeks there has been speculation that the presidential and mayoral campaigns of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) candidates in Panama received money–up to US$6 million–from David Murcia Guzman, who was last year caught in Panama after his pyramid scheme in Colombia was exposed. Today, the incumbent PRD’s presidential candidate–Balbina Herrera–claimed that she took no such money and alleged that the opposition has also worked with Murcia, or some lawyer-associates of his, anyway.
President Correa’s election campaign was fined by the Consejo Nacional Electoral for a broadcast on government TV which featured a cover of the Beatles’ Hey Jude and displayed a Correa campaign poster int he background. Latinnews.com ($) writes:
Correa claimed that the campaign was being fined for “three seconds of a broadcast” in which a singer had appeared in front of a poster for Correa’s campaign. The CNE ruled that the Correa campaign had allowed its campaign to become associated with a public interest broadcast about the successes of the Correa administration.
The fine is $650, and will come out of the Correa advertising campaign account, which is managed by the CNE. To buy tv spots during the campaign period–which starts today and runs until the April 26 elections–the CNE acts as an intermediary, ensuring that the rates and accounting are within campaign finance law.
Much if not all of the campaign finance law is less than two months old, passed along with an electoral system reform in February. The legislative electoral system still uses open lists and allows voters to cast multiple preference votes for candidates, even spreading those votes across multiple electoral lists, but the districting has changed, with large districts split into smaller multi-member districts.
Ecuador has elections coming up, in April. The official campaign period begins in 3 weeks. Candidates are collecting money through the internet and through public events like bingos and raffles. Opponents to President Correa, who is running again, are worried that he will have too much of an advantage by way of the state. But Correa’s campaign manager says that they are receiving money from citizens, and report that their average internet contribution is US$200.
Regulations: Presidential candidates will be limited to spending US$1.5 million for the two-round contest. A candidate cannot accept donations of more than 10% of the spending limit, US$155k. (But there is no provision that the same contributor cant contribute that amount to more than one candidate). All expenditures over $500 must include a receipt and all contributions over $1500 cannot be made in cash (must be check or transfer).
I plan to have more on the campaign finance practices and regulation on this election in the near future, as I learn more (and now that I have returned from my ElectionFinance hiatus). This information comes from El Universo, which has short profiles of the campaign treasurers for all the presidential candidates.
In the wake of allegations that shadow minister Osborne received large contributions from a wealthy Russian, the government seeks to upgrade and tighten enforcement of the restriction on foreign political donations, currently illegal under British law. The Home Secretary will attempt to add the provisions to “Political Parties and Elections Bill, currently on its way through parliament.” Story at the Telegraph.
Current law prohibits donations from businesses that receive contracts from the state and gambling. The Health Minister is proposing the changes this week, after the connections that have emerged in recent months involving (legal) drug companies, illegal drugs, and contributions to President Cristina Kircher’s campaign. Story at Clarin (spanish).
The Associated Press writes about the diminished likelihood of a revival for the public financing system:
… But advocates of a public finance system aren’t eager to give up on a system that relies on voluntary taxpayer contributions on their annual tax returns. And while Obama backed away from his promise to take public money if McCain did, they want him to live up to his pledge to fix the system if he becomes president.
The Dealbook blog at the NYTimes has this report based on a release by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Echoing the point made in the post, I would say to its commenters that the data cannot be taken as evidence that contributions buys votes in Congress since FIRE industries are more likely to support those that are sympathetic towards them to begin with.
It has been frequently remarked that Brazilian legislative elections are expensive, This week, the Economist says that what is true for federal seats is also true for vereador elections: elections for local municipal councils are also expensive, and it would seem in part for the same reasons. Here’s a good chunk of their article, with emphasis added for the apparent causes of high-spending:
Transparência, an NGO, has examined the last set of races in three state capitals (São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Belo Horizonte), which took place in 2004. Of 55 vereadores elected in São Paulo, 40 declared that they had spent more than 100,000 reais (then $35,000) on their races. One candidate spent over five times that amount. In Rio de Janeiro, some campaigns were even more expensive in terms of votes gathered per real spent. Certain successful candidates in the city spent more than $15 for each vote they won. (In comparison, George Bush spent $5.60 per vote he garnered in the American presidential election that year, and John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, $5.20 for each of his.) If undeclared spending were added, the sums would be even greater.
Why is it worth spending such sums just to become a member of a municipal council? In the big cities, the mayor controls a substantial budget. In smaller ones, money from the federal government, funnelled through the municipality, is often the mainstay of the local economy.
Until the Supreme Court banned the practice, states were able to create new municipalities almost at will. As a result, the number of places designated as cities grew by more than a thousand in a couple of years. Each new city brought its own administrative structure, which in turn provided new jobs and the right to tap federal funds. In such places, control of the local machine this time around may be vital in securing success in 2010, when the next presidential election will be held.
Although many candidates are no doubt motivated solely by public spiritedness, the moneymaking opportunities afforded to a vereador are also appealing. The combined salary and office expenses of a São Paulo vereador amount to 94,000 reais a month, making the job very well paid. Much of the office expenses seem to go on “consultancy”, which is particularly sought after in an election year. There is also the possibility of making some money on the side: a few years ago vereadores were found to be behind an organisation that extorted money from street vendors. Power over zoning makes vereadores of interest to property developers, who often provide campaign contributions too.
As is the case with deputies at both state and federal level, a sizeable proportion of vereadores have cases against them pending in either the electoral or the ordinary criminal courts. The municipalities also share two further afflictions with the two tiers of government above them. The first is party switching: 14 of Rio’s vereadores changed party after the last local elections. The second is the lack of electoral districts. A candidate standing in São Paulo, for example, must appeal to some 10m voters, rather than to a prescribed chunk of the city. Once elected, a vereador therefore lacks responsibility for any particular group of voters, further undermining his accountability.
The system is made even more unbalanced by a rule that allows candidates who get more votes than they need to win to transfer some of them to someone else on their party list. As a result, some vereadores are elected with very little support. The most popular vereador in the Rio election was voted in with 99,900 votes. Another candidate sneaked into the same chamber with a mere 6,800.
It is not hard to see how the political and financial influences as well as the moneymaking opportunities of the post lead candidates to spend lots of money. Less clear are the points about party switching, lack of electoral districts, and voting rules, but they are all somewhat related. At least, that is, if the electoral system used in local elections is essentially that which is used for federal legislative elections.
Basically, the system works as follows: for large electoral districts that elect many candidates each, parties run slates of candidates (and often they form electoral alliances to run large multiparty slates) and the number of seats won by each party (or alliance) is based on the combined vote of all candidates in the group. Then, if the party won X seats, they go to the X candidates with the most number of votes.
The consequences of this are several: (1) there is a proliferation of candidates because of the many seats available and because parties and alliances benefit from running as many candidates as possible, (2) because of this, successful candidates are those that have personal reputations that stand out, (3) building personal reputations often costs money either to advertise oneself or to engage in practices like vote buying (gift giving) that build personal loyalties with voters, (4) intraparty competition exacerbates #2 and thus #3 because candidates cannot attract personal votes simply by being a member of a particular party, (5) candidates engage in lots of party switching (in part) because of #2.
If this is correct, then it is not that party switching or large electoral districts or the fact that a strong candidate can help “pull” his/her copartisan weaklings that are to blame for spending, but instead the extreme proliferation of candidates and intraparty competition. Eliminating candidate-level voting – i.e., making it so that voters can only vote for party slates and not individual candidates in those slates (”closed” ranked lists of candidates) – and/or greatly reducing the number of seats per district would help in this regard.
NZ: NZ First inquiries
The Herald has a series of articles on the undeclared donations scandal in New Zealand, which has tarnished the government right before November (or earlier) elections. Here’s the source of the controversy:
New Zealand First is now facing three separate inquiries into donations it received since 2005 and the Electoral Commission has given it until the end of the month to file accurate returns for the last three years.
The police confirmed today there would be an inquiry into a complaint laid by ACT leader Rodney Hide about the party’s failure to declare a donation of $80,000 last year.The Serious Fraud Office is investigating donations by Sir Robert Jones and the Vela family to find out whether the money was used for the purposes the donors intended.
And Parliament’s privileges committee is deciding whether a $100,000 donation from expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn, which was used to pay fees charged by a lawyer working for NZ First leader Winston Peters, should have been declared as a gift.
Mr Glenn has said Mr Peters personally solicited the donation and thanked him for it.
Mr Peters says he never asked for money and knew nothing about the donation, made in December 2005, until July 18 this year when his lawyer, Brian Henry, told him about it.Mr Glenn is due to appear before the privileges committee tomorrow, when he will be asked for evidence that Mr Peters asked for the money and what he thought it was going to be used for.
Mr Peters is due to appear on Wednesday to give his version of what happened.
One way or another all the donations, which total about $150,000, are now under investigation.
The donations went into the Spencer Trust and were channelled to NZ First by the trust.
Under electoral law, all donations of more than $10,000, or multiple cheques from the same sources that amount to more than $10,000, have to be declared to the Electoral Commission.
NZ First filed nil returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007.
The Spencer Trust also directly paid the party’s bills, and that should have been declared as well.
The party president during those years, MP Dail Jones, wrote to the Electoral Commission explaining what he called “an administrative error” which caused nil returns to be filed.
After passing on third reading, a public subsidy bill is being reconsidered by the Philippine legislature, apparently after protests that it was not scheduled (or there was no quorum) for the vote.
The bill penalizes politicians who constantly change political parties by disqualifying them from office. It also effectively creates a state subsidy fund that will finance the operations and campaigns of political parties.
The Governor of Illinois used an “amendatory veto” to send a campaign finance bill back to the legislature so that it could include a ban on all political contributions from state employees. The AP writes:
With the change, Illinois, one of the few states with no limits on contributions, would become “a model in ethics reform,” Blagojevich spokeswoman Kelley Quinn said.
The measure the governor unveiled late Friday appears difficult to police. Currently, election law requires candidates to disclose the occupation and employer of contributors giving $500 or more. Blagojevich’s proposal mentions no minimum contribution and carries a $10,000 penalty for violations.
From the BBC:
Political parties received £10.7m in donations between April and June – up from £8.1m during the previous three months, figures show.
…The commission’s chief executive, Peter Wardle, said: “Having previously called on parties to address the issue of late reporting of individual donations, we are pleased to see this being addressed and expect to see continued improvements.”
Argentina: Drug money
A series of scandals involving pharmaceutical companies — each pointing in the direction that they are involving in the manufacture and/or trafficking of illicit drugs, and the most dramatic involving the assassination of several businessmen – might be worrisome for President Kirchner (the new one) given that her campaign finance disclosures (and those of her husband) show contributions from the companies, La Nacion reports.
The article also notes that a large portion (36.5%) of the political contributions made to the Kichners since 2003 were from drug companies.
Defending the president, her minister of health remarked that “it’s very difficult to control” the origins of campaign contributions.
Latinnews.com ($) reports that the deal among leftwing parties to support a single mayoral candidate for Sao Paolo, Marta Suplicy, was in part to give her more of the state subsidized airtime:
The electoral accord will give Suplicy almost seven minutes of free air time on television for electoral broadcasts, second only to the incumbent mayor Gilberto Kassab, of the opposition Democratas. This should help her to consolidate her current poll lead in São Paulo.
The BBC reports:
Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander has resigned “with deep regret” after breaking rules on declaring donations.
It came as she faced a one-day ban from Holyrood after failing to register donations to her leadership campaign.
It seems she failed to declare about £10,000:
She later updated her register with details of 10 donors, who each gave about £1,000 to her campaign.
Jeff Zeleny at the NYTimes Blog reports:
Senator Barack Obama, as he becomes his party’s presumptive presidential nominee, is starting to exert his authority over the Democratic National Committee. A first step? New fund-raising guidelines.
Mr. Obama is announcing today that the D.N.C. will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees, which follows the rules he established for his own campaign last year.
WZTV in Tennessee reports:
A campaign finance reform bill to make it harder for candidates to hide the source of their campaign finances appeared to be dead as the 2008 regular session of the Legislature neared an end.
From The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah, a report begins:
The state’s 8-year-old electronic campaign finance reporting system is getting an overhaul, but for now, candidates can change or delete entries to their online documents without explanation or a visible trail.
Pinto-Duschinsky’s report done for Policy Exchange makes several headlines, including: Public subsidies to MPs ‘rising’, Low-level party funding ‘a myth’ and Parties ’spend less fighting elections than 40 years ago’.
RSS 2.0