Election Funding: Pay the Piper, Call the Tune
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2008-01-02 09:21
Politicians who run for office need loads of campaign cash. The candidates in this year’s presidential campaign are busy raising money from corporate America. Critics warn that this makes politicians dependent on big business, because the politicians are obliged to do something in return once they get elected. Some liberals are proposing to outlaw corporate donations and replace them by state subsidies. They cite Europe as the example to follow.
In anti-capitalist Europe, the state is the largest benefactor of politicians. In Germany and the Netherlands, political parties receive a third of their income from government subsidies. In Scandinavian countries such as Norway, state funding accounts for three quarters of the parties’ income. In France, Spain and Belgium, an even higher proportion is state funded. In Belgium it is illegal for politicians and parties to accept donations from companies, while private individuals may only give a maximum of $725 per year to politicians.
European political parties receive state subsidies in accordance with the number of votes they gain. In Europe too, however, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Europe’s politicians have to obey the state.
Two years ago, authorities in the Netherlands stopped funding the SGP, a fundamentalist Calvinist party, because it does not put forward women candidates for election. The SGP, which happens to be Holland’s oldest political party, believes politics is a man’s business, not a woman’s. Most of the Dutch voters do not agree. The party has only two of the 150 seats in the Dutch Parliament.
In September 2005, a court in The Hague barred the SGP from receiving the amount of subsidies to which it was entitled in accordance with the number of its voters because the party is a sexist organization which discriminates against women. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, currently a Resident Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington but in 2005 still a member of the Dutch Parliament, applauded the decision to deprive the SGP of its income. Ms. Hirsi Ali said that any political party discriminating against women or homosexuals should be deprived of funding.
Last month the Dutch Supreme Court overruled the 2005 verdict. The Supreme Court stated that all political parties should be treated equally, no matter what their opinions are. The case will now go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, which is likely to overrule the Dutch Supreme Court and uphold the ban on state subsidies for the SGP.
In Belgium the governing parties have initiated proceedings to defund the Vlaams Belang. The VB is Belgium’s largest opposition party. It strives for the dismemberment of Belgium and the independence of Flanders, Belgium’s Dutch-speaking northern half, and is opposed to non-European immigration. Some, including Ms. Hirsi Ali when she visited Belgium two years ago, argue that the party is a racist organization and hence has no right to exist, let alone receive government subsidies. Others, such as Prof. Marc Uyttendaele, the legal advisor of the Belgian government, argue that a state cannot be forced to subsidize its mortal enemies.
In a country like Belgium, where private donations above $725 are illegal, depriving a party of state subsidies is a way to kill the opposition. Belgium’s example seems to have inspired the European Union authorities in Brussels.
In 2004 the European Parliament (EP) decided that only parties which form transnational alliances with likeminded parties in other European countries and which “accept the fundamental European values” are entitled to receive government funds. So far the EP decision has only been used to bar so-called “racist” parties from government subsidies. The EP decision can, however, also be used to deny subsidies to so-called “Eurosceptic” parties. The latter, which oppose further European political integration and defend the national sovereignty of the EU member states, are considered to be enemies of “Europe,” i.e. of the EU project.
Last December representatives of the four major groups in the EP – the Christian-Democrats, Socialists, Liberals and Greens – proposed to restrict EU subsidies to their groups only. As the Eurocrats argue: Why should the EU subsidize its enemies? The “Eurosceptics” saw this coming. Three years ago they launched a legal challenge against the decision to establish state-funded European political parties. When the EU Court, which sees it as its role to support deeper European integration, turned down their complaint a “Eurosceptic” EP member from Poland observed: “This is exactly how the communists maintained themselves in power in my country. They didn’t ban elections – we had elections every four years. They just banned their opponents from contesting the elections.”
Democracy means that citizens are allowed to vote for whomever they please. If Americans fear that one of their candidates will be too servile to big business they can vote for someone else. In Europe, however, the state has begun to disqualify parties because of their opinions, so the citizens can only vote for the politicians whom the state pleases.
This piece was originally published in The Washington Times on January 2, 2008 .
Watch out, U.S.!
Submitted by RS on Thu, 2008-01-03 19:08.
This important article should raise loud alarm bells for U.S. citizens, for the foundations of a similar introduction of "soft fascism" have already been laid down:
1) Federal Election Commission funding of campaigns via voluntary tax contributions;
2) Restrictions on private ($2,000 per person) and corporate contributions;
3) Regulation of political speech via McCain-Feingold.
All of the Democratic candidates support these restrictions (and desire more such).
Among the Republican candidates, McCain authored and Thompson strongly supported McCain-Feingold. Romney formerly supported, but now opposes, McCain-Feingold type measures. Giuliani strongly supported McCain-Feingold.
EUROPE IS NO MODEL INDEED
Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Thu, 2008-01-03 18:30.
"In a country like Belgium, where private donations above $725 are illegal, depriving a party of state subsidies is a way to kill the opposition. Belgium’s example seems to have inspired the European Union authorities in Brussels".
That's why Belgium cannot be considered a real democracy. Belgians should stop paying taxes, because, to be credible and legitimate, any democracy must be representative and participatory.
E.g., why isn't there any contradictory public debate on global warming in Old Europe? What are they afraid of? What is this Europe becoming? What has it become?
Then, people get offended when you try to explain that the situation is very negative. Belgium is a negative country. Belgians do not (yet?) realise that. Why negative? Simply because it is impossible to win there.
When passing through, I often wonder how the majority of people makes ends meet there. Infantilisation and statism have become the main moral references.
And then there are those Kappers, Kapitein Andre and other Amsterdamskies who would like to turn me into an America basher. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Just read Mark Steyn's book "America alone". Because it is actually.
Election funding and restriction on freedoms
Submitted by Zen Master on Thu, 2008-01-03 04:34.
This article is a good example of how the EP elites eliminate opposition parties. Too much power is placed without necessary controls by those who abuse power.
......“In a country like Belgium, where private donations above $725 are illegal, depriving a party of state subsidies is a way to kill the opposition. Belgium’s example seems to have inspired the European Union authorities in Brussels.” ,,,, [snip]... The EP decision can, however, also be used to deny subsidies to so-called “Eurosceptic” parties. The latter, which oppose further European political integration and defend the national sovereignty of the EU member states, are considered to be enemies of “Europe,” i.e. of the EU project.”
The EP needs to find themselves under public protests over this abuse of the public freedom of expression.
Europe is no model
Submitted by Dr. D on Wed, 2008-01-02 14:45.
The idea that Europe is a model for the US to follow in this matter is totally absurd. There are potentials for abuse in the current US system, but none so bad as the abuses clearly in action in the European system. America should never consider such a foolish action as following European nations down this road to ruin.
Iran
Submitted by Vincep1974 on Wed, 2008-01-02 10:14.
Euro state defunding of parties on ideological reasons seems no different than the Council of Guardians vetting who can run for office in Iran. How obscene.