Bertie 16 Grand Over Limit in Election Expenses

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 12:59

Tell me that every TD who overspent in their campaign, thus breaking electoral law, is debarred from public office. Ah go on.

by Daithi Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:07

No such luck, Ray. But here's the full report... http://www.sipo.gov.ie/eleceret.htm

by Andrew Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:25

These figures are a lot more revealing then you might think as you can now compare them with the 1st preferences each party got. Which tells you how much each vote cost them. Below how much each party 'paid' for a first preference vote.

FF 4.6
FG 5.6
Lab 5.5
PD 8.1
GP 3.4
SF 4.2
SP 2.1
SWP 6.6

It's remarkable how consistent these figures are in particular for the top three parties where the variation spent per vote only deviates by 10% or so between them.

The winners here unsurpizingly are the GP and SP. The SP did particularly well paying less then half of what the major parties did.

Likewise there is no real surprise that the PD's paid more per vote then any other party. What is perhaps a bit more telling is that the SWP was almost paying as much!

Finally SF did not do much better then Finna Fail in terms of what is was paying per vote.

by Andrew Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:27

Missing from the above is the Workers Party. Anyone know how many first preferences they got so I can plug them into the spreadsheet?

by Lord Haw Haw Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:28

What makes SF the 4th biggest in the "Free State"?

(and could you also point out the Free State on a map for me?)

by Andrew Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:38

Also appreciate a 1st preference figure for the Christian Solidarity Party

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:43 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

First, one adds up the total vote received by every party in the State, then you compare them. In 2002 the total vote for each party was:
Fianna Fáil: 770,846
Fine Gael: 417, 653
Labour: 200,138
Sinn Féin: 121,039
PDs: 73,268
Greens: 71,480.

As you can see, Sinn Féin received the fourth highest number of votes. If you do not like the term 'Free State' I am happy to use '26 Counties', 'The South' and 'your arrogant, sadly pretentious abortion of a state'. :)

If you prefer to calculate things on an all-Ireland basis, as I do, then Sinn Féin is the third biggest party in the State, the vote at the last Six County election taking us well past the Labour party.

Sinn Féin, we're bigger than people think :)

by - Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:45

http://ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=51536&start=0&sid=73119

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:46

is being discussed in another article. There's no need to post a link here.

by Daithi Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:47

CSP: 4741
WP: 4012

note re the link I provided earlier - there is info on unsuccessful candidates and various other breakdowns of the stats which will be of interest for people like me with little better to do with their time!

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:50

As far as I can see from the electoral act 1997
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html
( b ) where the total of the election expenses incurred or deemed to have been incurred by the election agent of a candidate at an election (other than election expenses deemed under section 32 (1) (b) (h) or 33 (1) (b) (ii) to be election expenses incurred by that candidate) exceeds the relevant amount calculated in accordance with section 32 or 42, as the case may be, or an order made under section 33 (1) the Minister for Finance shall, on the recommendation of the Public Offices Commission, deduct an amount equal to such excess from any sum which may be payable or become payable as a reimbursement of election expenses to the said member under section 21 or regulations made under subsection (2) of that section.

in other words, you can spend what you like. Successful candidates will get some of that back. Successful candidates who overspend will get less of it back, but there is no other sanction. Three cheers for democracy!

by Andrew Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:51

If you run the figures again comparing cash spent against seats won then SF sort of come out as the richest* party in terms of paying the most per seat. This times its

FF 44074.07
FG 75483.87
LAB 52380.95
PDs 74750.00
GP 40000.00
SF 102200.00
SP 30690.27

* - richest? Well yes its stretching the argument but this indymedia after all!

by Daithi Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:51

Apples and oranges, Justin - you can't say third biggest on a 32-county basis when not all of the parties in that calculation are even registered in the North (or 'statelet', or 'occupied six counties' or whatever - though I'm writing down your pretentious abortion for future use) - it's an advertiser's trick (e.g. Lada was the "Top selling car in Europe!" when you include Russia as part of Europe) - although if you really wanted to sound good, you could say 'biggest party participating in all (north and south) elections'...

by Gaz - cfe - personal capacity Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:52

the Public Office Commission has said it will not seek to prosecute any candidate pushed over the limit by the decision in the Kelly case. HOWEVER defeated candidates could petition the High Court to set aside an election result if a successful candidate overspent. This would lead to a bye-election.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:52

As well as missing out on the cash-back, overspending TDs may be subject to a whopping fine of up to ONE THOUSAND POUNDS.
So I guess all those overspending TDs will be debarred after all, once they've been declared bankrupt. Three more cheers!

by Andrew Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:54

The cost per vote results are now in for the CSP and the WP.

CSP 2.6 Euro per vote
WP 5.4 Euro per vote

by Anonymous Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:55

That's good and interesting calculations right there Andrew.

Anyone care to explain what "total expenses which was met out of public funds", in the figures (kindly provided by Daithi http://www.sipo.gov.ie/eleceret.htm ), means??

For example with Bertie Ahern:-

Expenses accounted for by the candidate's election agent:- 32,093.76

Expenses accounted for by the national agent of the candidate's political party:- 10,932.51

Total expenses:- 43,026.27

Amount of total expenses which was met out of public funds.:- 20,643.70

Whats the story with this 20,643.70??

by Daithi Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:57

Ray is correct - although there is also the option of a section 132 petition, which has a special provision for appealing a result after the donation statement comes out. Which would be fun

(you would never guess that i've written about electoral law before and wasted good time studying it, no?)

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 13:59

The Electoral act says that winning candidates get their money back, as do political parties, up to the limit set out in the Act (the spending limit alluded to in earlier posts).

by Justin Moran - Sinn Fein Wed Jun 11, 2003 14:00 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

Ray, you can also petition the High Court if you lost the election but a person who got a seat overspent. At least in theory the result can be set aside and a bye-election called.

Daithi, while I realise they're not registered in the North it's not really our problem if we're the only national party* and they are regionally based parties (Big region admittedly). We'd love them to move up to being nationally organised parties and maybe one day, if they wish hard enough, they will be :)

Andrew, well stretched. Well stretched indeed.

*I know the SP, SWP and RSF organise across the border but none of them are organised in all counties. Still, I'm expecting abuse so back to work.

by MG Wed Jun 11, 2003 14:01

It might also be interesting to see how much each party spent per Dail seat successfully secured.

FF = 80 seats
FG = 31
Lab = 21
PD = 8
GP = 6
SF = 5
SP = 1

This works out at:

FF = €44,625 per seat
FG = €75,483
Lab = €52,380
PD = €74,750
GP = €40,000
SF = €102,200
SP = €30,690

Sorry Justin, but it appears your crowd were ripped off in the great Dail seat sale (oops, I mean "general election" of course)...

by Daithi Wed Jun 11, 2003 14:03

Ireland has a system of limited public financing of candidates (if you get enough votes) that's reimbursed after the election. It's wonderfully convoluted in parts - the idea is to fill the gap after donations were restricted. Or something.

by Ray Wed Jun 11, 2003 14:07

Yes, in theory that option is open for losing candidates, but you'd have to demonstrate that it materially affected the result of the election. And you can't apply for that petition until the electoral expenses are laid before the Oireachtas - which appears to be a year after the election. Making it even more unlikely that any High Court judge would grant the petition.

by - Wed Jun 11, 2003 14:41

it may be interesting to compàre the capital of slimey greenie TD ciaran Cuffe [1,300.000€] and the 240,000€ his party spent on buying seats in the Irish elections.
if he had not been a slimey greenie hypocritical bastard he could have helped the Greenies spend more money on democracy rather than helping the Oil corporations destroy the environment, opress indiginous peoples and push up the defecit of the US government.
does he care that the global defecit is a stunning 44,000,000,000,000,000,000 $ with bits of string attached?

by Limerick1919 Wed Jun 11, 2003 19:31 limerick1919 at hotmail dot com

Surely the figures for 'money for votes ' are low for fg and ff because they run a lot of candidates in each constituency. Thus one page advert in local press can cover all three/four etc. FF also return at least 2 seats in most constituencies where again the same level of expense wouldn't have to be dished out as for a one candidate ticket.
I also presume the discrepency between SF and SP arises in part from SP strategy to only focus on constituencies where there was some semblence of orgaisation as opposed to SF who tried to be a truly national party and offer someone in most of Ireland

Just observations

by Ailin Wed Jun 11, 2003 20:51

*I know the SP, SWP and RSF organise across the border but none of them are organised in all counties. Still, I'm expecting abuse so back to work.

by Blinded by the light Wed Jun 11, 2003 21:17

The most interesting things to take from these statistics are the figures for Labour and Sinn Fein.

Both spent a huge amount of money on the most recent election. Both also spend a great deal of money that doesn't show up on this kind of report - money spent establishing a profile between elections with constituency offices etc. In Sinn Fein's case the figures understate their real resources even more because of course their main priority for spending is in the North where the bulk of their machine and support is.

Any way you look at it we are talking about very rich organisations. Organisations with access to millions of euros.

Where did this money come from?

I'm sure that some of this comes from the organisation's membership but Labour has only 3,000 to 4,000 members and it isn't as if membership dues are high. Sinn Fein probably has more members, if you count the North, but still that doesn't come anywhere close to explaining their income. Neither does the cash Labour gets from their friends at the top of some of the unions.

We should be clear about how both parties get their paws on so much loot. Rich people give it to them. And rich people aren't in the habit of giving money to their enemies.

That's true for the PD's, for Fianna Fail and Fine Gael too of course but nobody has any illusions that FF or FG or the PDs are anything other than the bought and paid for mouthpieces of the rich. Does anyone here think differently about Labour or Sinn Fein nowadays?

They are two parties with a more radical past, certainly, but also two parties which are entirely comfortable with privatisation and with attacks on working class living standards. It was after all Sinn Fein which introduced the Private Finance Initiative and Public Private Partnerships to Irish schools and hospitals. And who could forget Pat Rabbitte's impassioned explanation that people are worried about how services are delivered, whether by the public sector or by business profiteers.

So the rich fund Labour and Sinn Fein. In SF's case they are still a little scary to the Southern Irish rich, so their rich backers tend to be American. In Labour's case... well no Irish banker or businessman could be at all worried about the party of tax amnesties for the rich.

by David Thu Jun 12, 2003 00:42

While i'm no in any way sure, I gathered from the days media coverage that each individual contesting a td position was allowed to spend 22 thousand euro on his/her campaign?
If this is true, it puts the over spending by the likes of bertie firmly in context, spending almost twice as much as legally allowable, a huge adcantage, and that wouldn't even include all the FF posters around the country with his muppety face on them

by Janus Thu Jun 12, 2003 13:57

Ummm, how can they spend 'millions' when SF spent only a little more than half a million and Labour barely more than a million. Neither had big campaigns before the elections in the run up to spend money.

As for raising money, as a former SF member we used to do fundraisers in the bad old days and you could, if you were doing it properly, pull out a grand at a constituency function. ONE function, here the Shinners had five years to get ready for this and save up for it.

I'm no fan of Labour, I'm no fan of the right-ward drift in Sinn Fein, but to say they're funded by the rich is absolute, 100%, unadulterated fresh from the source horse manure and you cannot provide a single piece of evidence to prove this, while they can both provide to the accounts they had to present to the Government.

by Anonymous Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:21

Massive questions are raised from all this for democracy which all parties (i.e. the smaller ones who are at a disadvantage from this), anarchists and individuals should protest about and move to have it changed. This protest needs to be borne through the media as well. Not that we didn't know about this already but more needs to be done about it.

The penalties for over-spending are near non-existent. I wouldn't crib too much for minor over-expenditures but for blatant and high over expenditures as listed on the original article, elected candidates should lose their seat.

Ray summed up the penalties in an earlier comment:-

"in other words, you can spend what you like. Successful candidates will get some of that back. Successful candidates who overspend will get less of it back, but there is no other sanction. Three cheers for democracy!

"As well as missing out on the cash-back, overspending TDs may be subject to a whopping fine of up to ONE THOUSAND POUNDS.
So I guess all those overspending TDs will be debarred after all, once they've been declared bankrupt. Three more cheers!"

This based on the electoral act of 1997:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html or
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/eleceret.htm

( b ) where the total of the election expenses incurred or deemed to have been incurred by the election agent of a candidate at an election (other than election expenses deemed under section 32 (1) (b) (h) or 33 (1) (b) (ii) to be election expenses incurred by that candidate) exceeds the relevant amount calculated in accordance with section 32 or 42, as the case may be, or an order made under section 33 (1) the Minister for Finance shall, on the recommendation of the Public Offices Commission, deduct an amount equal to such excess from any sum which may be payable or become payable as a reimbursement of election expenses to the said member under section 21 or regulations made under subsection (2) of that section.

Three big issues are raised from this which defeat democracy:-

1. If successful candidates are significantly above their allowed limit this constitutes a significant unfair advantage. It is undemocratic. And hence the person should lose their seat.

2. The ceilings of expenditure per candidate are too high, i.e.:-

Three seat constituency - €25,394.76
(per candidate I am assuming)
Four seat constituency - €31,743.45
Five seat constituency - €38,092.14

(And the bigger parties are using additional expenditure to this as well.)

Again, in a true democratic, equal society, there needs to be a level playing field - ESPECIALLY, where elections are concerned.

The smaller parties and individuals contesting elections, just cannot afford this expenditure. 40K in a 5 seater is just miles beyond smaller parties. So again the bigger parties are at a complete advantage.

This ceiling should be very significantly lowered, so as to create a level, equal, and democratic playing field for all candidates.

The public in general are sick of all the postering and leafleting. A certain amount is needed, for sure, but at present it is way too excessive and is merely a mass marketing campaign where by the richest campaign wins.

3. Last, but certainly not least, the amount of total expenses which is met out of public funds needs to be equally apportioned to ALL (not just the successful) candidates. And not just in relative terms, but in ABSOLUTE, monetary terms.

So for example, many (though not all) FF TD's got huge reimubursements from public (i.e. OUR) finances, eg's:-

Bertie Ahern 20,643.70
Seamus Brennan 14,093.15
Mary Couglan 41,699.21
Brain Cowen 13,393.78

In contrast, compare some of the following:-

Joe Higgins (SP) 655.00
Dan Boyle (Greens) Zero

The above 3 items (and others) add up to making a mockery out of Irish democracy, equality and fairness.

Though the media in general may be biased, I think this is an issue which they may cover - It needs to be pursued.

All issues must be addressed and changed, and all concerned, must ensure that this is brought about.

by Anonymous Thu Jun 12, 2003 14:23

All the records and regulations on the last election can be found on:-

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/eleceret.htm

"The expenditure limits applying to candidates at the election were as follows:-

Three seat constituency - €25,394.76
(per candidate I am assuming)
Four seat constituency - €31,743.45
Five seat constituency - €38,092.14"