The 2007, Philips report stated that there was a strong case for state funded parties because of the vast discrepancy in the amount of money parties received as well as the number of financial scandals. which undermine public faith in democracy. An example of this is the "cash for Honours" as it seemed as labour donors had been elevated to the house of lords by Tony Blair. 2)Prevent people buying influence
Allows minor parties to have more influence
It would level out the playing field and would serve democracy since the people would be better and equally represented.
We live in a free democracy so people should be able to support whichever party they like. It is no different to supporting a charity or pressure group.
If the state did fund parties, it would be difficult to decide how much each gets. 3)Philosophically, state funding would entail that parties are "servants to the state" which limits the independence of political parties.
The funding of extremist political parties such as the British National Party which excludes certain groups from equal status would be able to gain influence but not funding them could also be conversational on the grounds of democracy and free speech.