Campaign finance party funding -similarity/difference

Theme 1

Concerns about influence of wealthy donors and attempt to regulate spending  

US 1

Both countries face donor influence concerns.  
in the US SuperPAC post Citizens United v FEC (2010) enabled record 2024 outside spending of 4.5 billion+, with Elon Musk’s American PAC spending over 200m backing Trump, raising concern over elitist influence on election outcomes and regulatory capture. 

Despite such concerns, regulations aimed at limiting the impact of campaign finance in the US have been largely unsuccessful. 

 The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 aimed to prohibit national political parties from raising or spending soft money and regulate 'issue advocacy ads'. But its effectiveness was undermined by Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which ruled monetary contributions to political campaigns are a form of free speech (constitution, first amendment). This struck down a key provision of the McCain-Feingold Act, which sought to prevent the use of issue ads as a backdoor means of corporations and unions influencing electoral outcomes. 

UK 1

In the UK, Frank Hester’s 10m+ donation to the conservatives in 2023-2024 drew scrutiny after reports of racist comments about Diane Abbott.  

The regulations in relation to UK party funding include  

Party expenditure cap at 35m per party UK wide, plus around 700,000 per registered third-party campaigner under Elections Act 2022, ensuring that money doesn't play a major role in determining the outcome by giving more well-off candidates an advantage.  

The Electoral Commission plays an important role in ensuring that these regulations are followed. 

Mini 1

Cultural theory; 

Although there are similarities between US and UK in terms of objectives of monitoring bodies – to prevent donor’s disproportionately greater influence on politicians and their decision making, the extent of effectiveness differs significantly.  This difference can be explained by cultural theory, as freedom of speech is of paramount importance in US political culture and many interpret the ability to use one's money as free speech, whilst this is not the case in the UK which has allowed party funding to be more effectively limited without a significant backlash. 

Theme 2

Caps on contribution and expenditure 

US 2

Both countries regulate political money, but through different instruments.  

In US, how much money can be donated by individual is controlled, whilst there’s unlimited spending limit. 

US directs contributions (hard money) to candidates and parties are capped at federal level (FEC limits update biennially), 

but super PAC independent expenditure is not capped following Citizens United v FEC 2010.  

US 2024 election’s $15.9bn price tag makes it costliest in history. 

UK 2

UK takes an opposite approach;  

UK rules do not cap individual donations; instead they place spending limit on general election campaigns 

 (around 35m per party at UK wide GE under PPERA 2000 Schedule 9), requiring donation above 11,180 to a central party to be publicly reported to the electoral commission, and restrict source (no foreign donation) 

Mini 2

Structural theory:  

-political money regulation in both countries sit in statute, with constitutional rule setting limit on what legislature can do to regulate it.  

-Notably Citizens United, 1^st amendment in US case, allowing unlimited spending, whilst parliamentary sovereignty allow Westminster to set limits on campaign funding and limit its overall size.   

Similarity:  

Both system use statutory rules, backed by constitutional doctrine to regulate political money  

Theme 3

Public funding mechanism exists in both countries

US 3

Both systems have public funding statutes for political activity.  

In US,  

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) sought to make campaign funding more transparent and fairer by introducing match funding for Presidential campaigns. 

presidential election campaign fund (PECF) is statute based but largely abandoned in practice:  

Obama-opted out in 2008, raising an unprecedented $745 million, which far outstripped the public funding limit, and major party nominees have declined the matching funds since.  

Bc-this option for public funding as the amount of money required to run a competitive campaign far exceeded what public funding could provide.  

UK 3

In the UK, opposition parties receive short money in the commons, Cranborne money is granted in the lords, plus policy development grants for commons parties, all administered to support parliamentary work outside campaign expenditure, as they lack the support of the civil service, enjoyed by the governing party of the day. 

Mini 3

Structural theory:  

-public funding for political activity is created and maintained by statute in both countries, not by convention or voluntary practice.  

That statutory grounding gives any public funding scheme legal continuity but also makes it vulnerable to political abandonment if the legislature stops valuing it.  

Similarity: public funding in both systems lives or dies by statutory choice.