Heavy metal band Iron Maiden has much to contribute to the debate on politicians' election expenses, writes Elaine Byrne
The Standards in Public Office Commission published the election expenditure details for the 2007 general election yesterday.
Iron Maiden has much to contribute to the debate on the election expenses of Dáil candidates. The song Deja Vu came from their 1986 album, Somewhere in Time. The lyrics adequately sum up the feelings at the commission's press briefing yesterday: Cause you know that this has happened before; And you know that this moment in time is for real; And you know when you feel deja vu.
Once again, the figures showed up the extraordinary flaws of the legislation on political funding. It is clearly not working and contributing to an unfair belief by the public that political parties are somehow corruptly financing their campaigns.
The commission has repeatedly highlighted the shortcomings and loopholes of the legislation. They are still waiting for a formal response from Minister for the Environment John Gormley to their 2003 submission.
An indication of the commission's frustration is their unusual step of briefing the media on the report. It is understood that these matters are currently before the Minister in the context of a commitment to establish an independent electoral commission. The commission is due to appear before the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government early next week. It remains to be seen what becomes of the standards commission and the potency of the electoral commission's powers.
More than €11 million was spent by political parties and candidates in the three-week period before polling day. The standards commission is not required under the legislation to monitor any political party spending prior to this period.
It has stated this "raises legitimate concerns that such 'front-loading' of campaign expenditure undermines the effectiveness of the expenditure limits and may create the perception that accounting for expenditure at election is little more than a paper exercise".
Thus, the total amount spent by political parties on the last election is anybody's guess.
The 2007 election was regarded by many as the longest running campaign, with many candidates electioneering some two years in advance of polling.
Donations disclosed by parties, TDs, Senators and MEPs for 2006 amounted to €272,676. This figure is misleading because most of the monies donated were in effect monthly or annual subscriptions to their party from the salaries of elected representatives. Excluding these subscriptions, the total donations disclosed in 2006 were €148,923.
When this figure is subtracted from the money spent on the election, a glaring figure of €10.9 million in donations remains undisclosed. The total donations for 2007 have yet to be disclosed to the standards commission. But it is fair to assume that these figures will not be substantially different to those of 2006.
In the 2002 election, the disparity between disclosed donations and the cost of the election was €7.3 million. This disparity has increased by €3.6 million between the 2002 election and the 2007 election. In the meantime, an increase on election spending has occurred, while there has been a paradoxical decrease in donation disclosure.
In the absence of publicly available audited accounts of political parties, from where did the difference of €10.9 million come?
Those who donate to political parties donate below the disclosure limit, thus avoiding publication of their name and the amount given. This preserves their anonymity and avoids hostile attention. But this is not a sufficient excuse to keep secret the total amount given.
As it stands, political parties and candidates do not have to account for their total annual finances. The standards commission has called for a change in the law in this respect.
We do not know what the annual income is for political parties. We do not have a complete picture of how they finance their election campaigns. We would not expect a business to be run in this manner. So why should we tolerate these remarkable inconsistencies by those who run the country on our behalf?
Political parties are undermining their own propriety by not disclosing their annual accounts. Such estimates would incorporate exchequer funding, donations above and below the disclosure limit, membership fees, national draws and other sources of fundraising.
Secrecy is responsible for weakening trust in politics by not being open and transparent regarding where the €10.9 million comes from. Rather than waiting for legislation that would compel parties to disclose a full income-expenditure account, voluntary disclosure would go some way to improve confidence in politics. What have the parties to lose?
Iron Maiden would agree. And it just makes me wanna cry; And throw my hands up to the sky, as they put it in Wasted Years. . .