Sir, – Commenting on election spending returns to the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo), Pat Leahy says that “campaigns are chaotic, and declarations are compiled with sometimes fuzzy hindsight, to put it kindly” (“Much hinges on Donohoe, perhaps even the future of the Government”, Analysis, January 19th).
I have to wonder who Pat Leahy spoke to before writing this, because his view won’t be familiar to anyone who has stood for election or to those who have helped run their campaigns.
For the last 30 years, general elections have taken place at intervals of between four and five years, with local and European elections taking place at five-year intervals set by law. This has meant that political parties and candidates can plan, with a considerable degree of certainty, for when elections might take place and the funds they will need to contest them. Gone are the days of the 1980s when elections could come as a surprise.
The number of individual spends during a four-week election campaign are relatively finite, such as the cost of printing posters, their erection and removal, printing leaflets, newspaper advertising, campaign events and transport.
A helping hand with the cost of caring: what supports are available?
Matt Williams: Take a deep breath and see how Sam Prendergast copes with big Fiji test
New Irish citizens: ‘I hear the racist and xenophobic slurs on the streets. Everything is blamed on immigrants’
Crucial weekend in election campaign as bland as an Uncle Colm monologue on Derry Girls
The number of unplanned spends during the election campaign will usually be very small.
Since 2001, spending limits have been enforced by law, which has made advance planning all the more important, and all political parties receive State funding to allow them to provide professional advice to candidates about compliance with the Sipo reporting requirements. Draconian restrictions on corporate donations and cuts to individual donation limits imposed in 2012 have also crippled the ability of political parties to fundraise, meaning that there are very few election candidates who are flush with cash to throw around at election time.
The result of all this is that it is that campaign finance is usually very closely planned and monitored at constituency level, and it would be most unusual for spending decisions to be made on the hoof or for people’s recollections to be “fuzzy”, as Pat Leahy says.
The intention seems to be to suggest that “they’re all at it”, which simply isn’t the case. – Yours, etc,
BARRY WALSH,
Dublin 3.
Sir, – The silver lining to the current spat over election expenses is that legislation strengthening the Standards In Public Office Commission is likely to be accelerated. In the meantime, would it be possible for the Dáil to agree to treat a complaint to Sipo as sub judice? When Sipo completes its report, the matter could then be debated in the Dáil, based on the facts that Sipo has established, thus satisfying the requirement for political accountability. Increased resources may be needed to allow Sipo to report in a timely manner, but this would be a small price to pay to avoid the current farce, which wastes valuable Dáil time when there are many urgent matters to be debated. – Yours, etc,
JOHN McGILP,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.
Sir, – Perhaps a review of the election expenses of all politicians by Sipo would bring this matter to an early conclusion. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone! – Yours, etc,
ANNE BARDON,
Shankill,
Co Dublin.