Quote:
Originally Posted by NatCh
Ach. That all by itself is an excellent reason not to mention any candidate by name here!  |
As I understand it, the ads mean money is taken out of their account and put into the cofers that keep MR running. At least something good can come out of this...
I guess, like HarryT, what intrigues me is that the debates and interviews in US elections seem so gentlemanly, yet the adverts (or the few I've seen picked up over here) seem the opposite.
But then the language of adverts in the UK is very different from the US. Until recently it was very rare to see and add say something like "Buy X, because our competitor Y is awful." So perhaps that is why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdurrant
spending on election campaigns in the UK is strictly limited, see
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...snpc-03413.pdf
for details, but essentially any candidate standing for election to the House of Commons can only spend up to £11,000 - about $19,000.
Recently limits have also been imposed on spending nationally by parties on election campaigning. This is currently around £30,000 per constituency being contested, or around £19 million if all seats are being contested, as with the major parties..
So there's still a bit of scope for large donors the have undue influence, although that is now mitigated by compulsory declaration of large donations. |
I think these are good, but probably pointless as the rich will probably find ways round these (I thinking of things like special interest groups who claim no political allegiance).
But what worries me is the debate about state funding. I still don't believe that this can be made watertight.