Political Corruption - Campaign Contributions

Campaign Contributions

In the political arena, corruption is mainly proven by following the money trail. However, the connection between the contribution and anything in return is difficult to prove. For this reason, there are often unproven rumors, that are termed, smear campaign, about many politicians.

Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions for their campaign finance. If they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that funded them, it could be considered corruption. Though donations may be coincidental, the question asked is, why are they funding politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money.

In the United States, before the Citizens United decision, the laws regulating campaign finance in the United States required that all contributions, and their, use should be publicly disclosed. However, some managed to evade disclosure till at after votes were made or years later. Many companies, especially larger ones, funded, and continue to fund, both the Democratic and Republican parties. Since the Citizens United decision, the pattern of corporate funding has increased, as the disclosure requirements have effectively been circumvented.

Certain countries, such as France, ban altogether the corporate funding of political parties. Because of the possible circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political campaigns, France also imposes maximum spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have handed in misleading accounting reports, risk having their candidacy ruled invalid. They also may be prevented from running in future elections. In addition, the government funds political parties according to their successes in elections.

In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscriptions (membership fees).

Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalized corruption, in that they often favor the political status quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do little more than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of private funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally taking money from the public coffers for their election campaigns to guarantee that they will continue to hold their influential and often well-paid positions.

As indicated above, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recognized in 1996 the importance of links between corruption and political financing. It adopted in 1837 the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4). This text is quite unique at international levels as it aims i.a. at increasing transparency in the funding of political parties and election campaigns (these two areas are difficult to dissociate since parties are also involved in campaigning and in many countries, parties do not have the monopoly over the presentation of candidates for elections), ensuring a certain level of control over the funding and spending connected with political activities, and making sure infringements are subject to effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. In the context of its monitoring activities, the Group of States Against Corruption has identified a great variety of possible improvements in those areas (see the country reports adopted under the Third Evaluation Round).

The legalization of enormous undisclosed campaign contributions allows undisclosed donors of sufficient wealth to effectively purchase election outcomes. Such donors are able to influence the politicians dependent on their contributions to give them governmental largess such as payments or tax reductions at the expense of other taxpayers, government-created monopolies at the expense of competitors and consumers, and license to adversely impact the well-being of common citizens by the release of unsafe products or of industrial pollution. The ability to command such influence, coupled with the granting of such favored treatment, gives rise to a perceived risk to clean elections and honest governance. In response, a number of potential legislative remedies have been proposed, among them the DISCLOSE Act.