PUTTING a limit on the amount of money candidates can spend on an election campaign is unfair, unworkable and will not clean up politics", the Progressive Democrats finance spokesman, Mr Michael McDowell, told the Dail. He described the measure in the Electoral Bill as more nanny state control and bureaucracy
The legislation, which passed all stages last night, puts a limit of £14 000 on the amount an individual candidate can spend, in a three-seat constituency, rising to £20,000 in a five-seat constituency.
The Bill also limits personal donations to £500 to individual politicians and £4,000 to a political party. Above that amount, the party must disclose the identity of the donor. The limits on donations come, into force for the general election, but the other measures will be delayed until January next year. These include refunds of up to £5,000 to candidates who receive a quarter of a quota.
The Minister for the Environment, Mr Howlin, said of the refunds that "it costs money to run a political party, a political organisation and I personally hate to be beholden to businesses for donations. He added that the notion still persisted that by donations people were able to buy political influence. The only way to deal with this is by total openness on how political parties are funded. Such parties are the life-blood of democracy."
Fianna Fail's environment spokesman, Mr Noel Dempsey, criticised the Government's plan to reimburse unsuccessful candidates who get a quarter of a quota. "I believe our profession is a noble one, but nobody should be paid to contest an election."
Criticising the limit on election spending, Mr McDowell said if three candidates in a constituency were fighting for a single seat, it was not possible for a single director of elections to say hand on heart, that he is giving a truthful account of what each candidate spent".
It was tried before in the Prevention of Electoral Abuses Act in 1923 and was found to be unworkable and removed from the Statute books, he added.
"It doesn't clean up politics; it is unfair in its results. It plays into the hands of the unscrupulous at the expense of the scrupulous. It's more nanny-state control."
