Money and Election Law
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1961.tb00812.x |
| Author | Richard Rose |
| Date | 01 February 1961 |
| Published date | 01 February 1961 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
MONEY
AND
ELECTION LAW
RICHARD
ROSE
University
of
Munchester
ELECTIONS
should not
only
be fairly conducted, but they should be
thought to
be
fairly conducted. Recent developments in Conservative
electioneering practices, combined with Labour’s defeat in the 1959 elec-
tion, have spread concern about the equity and the efficacy
of
the controls
on political expenditure laid down in the Representation
of
the People Act,
1949.
The
Times,
in
a
leader
of
9 June 1960, described them as ‘obviously
defective’. The Labour Party has charged that the Conservatives have spent
money in ways which are illegal, or ought to be made illegal. Partisanship
has distorted discussion
of
the problem; ignorance of the electoral process
has further confused it. The purpose of this article is to clarify the discussion
on money and election law by analysing the defects of the present Act,
weighing proposals for reducing electoral expenditure, considering means
of
restoring parity between the parties by increasing expenditure, evaluating
the
importance
of
money
in
winning elections,
and
describing what,
if
any-
thing, might be achieved in the foreseeable future.
I
At present the Representation
of
the People Act only controls the expen-
diture on elections in
so
far as it relates to candidates during the short
period
of
the campaign itself. The original purpose of this was to eliminate
bribery and seduction
of
voters. When Mr. Attlee’s government over-
hauled the controls, it reduced the limits
on
candidates’ expenditure by as
much as 40 per cent. in the hope
of
providing
a
rough parity of expenditure
by the parties
in
this
field. This section of the Act went through virtually
without debate.’ The election campaigns
of
1950 and 1951, when opponents
of
Labour’s nationalization programme conducted vigorous public relations
campaigns indirectly aiding the Conservatives, emphasized shortcomings
in its control of political expenditure. The courts held that Tate
&
Lyle
were justified
in
spending stockholders’ money in their
Mr.
Cube campaign
See
D.
E.
Butler,
The
Electoral
System in Brifain
1918-1951
(1953).
J.
K.
Pollock‘s
study,
Money
and Politics
Abroad
(1932),
especially
pp.
128
ff.,
describes
practices
in
Britain
in
the 1920’s similar
to
those complained
of
later.
5540.9.1
B
Politid
S~IUIIW,
VOI.
IX,
NO.
1
(1961,
1-1s).
To continue reading
Request your trial