State campaign financing?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://boffyblog.blogspot.ca/2012/03/cash-for-cameron-cut-crap.html

Boffy: "The worst thing that could come out of this would be if it led to the State financing of political parties. Already, the large salaries paid to MP's, by the State, ensures that those drawn into it, are largely careerist politicians, who see the joining of a Party as being like catching a bus. They choose which colour bus to catch based on which they think will get them to where they want to go most easily. If these career politicians no longer had to rely at all on having a Party machine behind them, made up of Party activists, who do have some ideological basis for joining a particular Party, then they could separate themselves completely, in order to operate in a world which was indeed one in which politics had become just another commodity to be sold to voters."

I have a more nuanced opinion on campaign financing, specifically. On the supporting side, one need only contrast the US and Germany, and now the consequences of Canada's de-financing move, to see why. Bundestag politicians can't switch "parties" unless they were elected by districts, and those elected directly via PR can be yanked out easily.

I say have a hybrid of the US and Germany, aimed against incumbency. The governing "party" must not be allowed to opt out of state-based campaign financing, but all opposition "parties" can receive state funds or opt out.

[This could be applied on a more micro level against district incumbents.]

Thoughts?

[blake 3:17]

In general I`m for state financing based on popular voter support. The Blog looks alright, though from some of the arguments I make opposite conclusions...



Bundestag politicians can't switch "parties" unless they were elected by districts, and those elected directly via PR can be yanked out easily.

Didn`t know that. Thanks!


I say have a hybrid of the US and Germany, aimed against incumbency. The governing "party" must not be allowed to opt out of state-based campaign financing, but all opposition "parties" can receive state funds or opt out.

[This could be applied on a more micro level against district incumbents.]


???

[Q]

In general I`m for state financing based on popular voter support.

Hmm, I wonder what that would mean, based on, for example, the 2010 elections in the UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/election2010/results/):

Tories: 36.1%
Labour: 29.0%
Liberal-Democrats: 23.0%
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
Far left vote combined (TUSC, SSP, Respect-Unity Coalition): 0.15%

So... We'd get 0.15% of the state budget and we support the main capitalists parties getting pretty much the rest of our tax money for their reactionary agenda? That sounds somewhat stupid to me. And the situation of the far left in most other countries isn't much different, if anything it is often worse.

It seems to me that we should rather advance the position of abolishing state funding. Demand that the finances of all parties should be fully open to the public (as was again an issue with the Tories recently (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17501618)).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Look at it first from a mainstream perspective, then from a leftist perspective. Corporate financing disproportionately favours the "center-right" party in any given country over the "center-left" party. Moving somewhat to the left, the Parti de Gauche would be slated to get over 10% of the state budget for campaign financing if France had this law today and if elections were held today. There's also Die Linke's situation.



I say have a hybrid of the US and Germany, aimed against incumbency. The governing "party" must not be allowed to opt out of state-based campaign financing, but all opposition "parties" can receive state funds or opt out.

[This could be applied on a more micro level against district incumbents.]???

The NDP would be entitled to state-based campaign financing but it could opt out, but the Tories wouldn't because they're the incumbent government. That's one approach. The other approach is that all the Tory MPs right now would have to receive only state funds for campaign financing, and the same for all the NDP and Liberal MPs. Challengers would receive state funds but could opt out.

[blake 3:17]

So... We'd get 0.15% of the state budget and we support the main capitalists parties getting pretty much the rest of our tax money for their reactionary agenda? That sounds somewhat stupid to me. And the situation of the far left in most other countries isn't much different, if anything it is often worse.

It seems to me that we should rather advance the position of abolishing state funding. Demand that the finances of all parties should be fully open to the public (as was again an issue with the Tories recently).

It may seem hard to get excited about, but certain parts of electoral reform -- like funding, more importantly proportional representation, would give voters some incentive to vote for a far Left party.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Fuck this.

Abolish state funding. Otherwise we'll be in the trap of party politics forever. I don't want any party to 'represent' me. I want them all out and I wanna rule my own life thanks.

It's not much of a trade-off to me, for a shitheap like the SWP, SPEW, CPGB or LMFAO to get a few extra percent of the vote in bourgeois elections, if party politics is going to become financially tied to the state.

After all, why would any 'far-left' party whose funding and electoral success is tied to funding from the state, want to rebel against...the state???:confused: As materialists, we know that this is what would happen, the 'far-left' would be totally absorbed into the bourgeois electoral process.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ You didn't read that part of my suggestion about opting out, did you?


I don't want any party to 'represent' me.

I want a party-movement, the institutionalized class-for-itself, to represent the broader class-in-itself.

[Positivist]

Campaign financing simply shouldn't exist. Ben Seattle talks about the separation of speech and property in order to allow all ideas to reach the public and to prevent only the ideas of the rich and powerful from being shoved down the throats of the populace. This is necessary for the achievement of legitimate democracy but is as unlikely to occur in a capitalist society as I am to become prince of Troy.

[Q]

Campaign financing simply shouldn't exist. Ben Seattle talks about the separation of speech and property in order to allow all ideas to reach the public and to prevent only the ideas of the rich and powerful from being shoved down the throats of the populace. This is necessary for the achievement of legitimate democracy but is as unlikely to occur in a capitalist society as I am to become prince of Troy.

This neatly sums up the whole undemocratic nature of elections as such. Demarchy, or actual (Athenian style) democracy, is what we should aim for if we want our class in power.