Funding should be provided solely by the state. There should be no corporate funding of political parties. Those who vote should receive a tax credit for doing so.

Funding levels should reflect the number of members a party has got, the diversity of its membership (race, gender, etc) as well as the number of votes it attracts at the ballot box.

The funding formula applied should be designed to promote diversity and voter choice by making it not too difficult for emerging parties to get onto the funding ladder.

Maybe in future 'political parties' may be radically changed or replaced (must say I am frustrated with how they are developing). For now parties will remain as the bedrock of democracy.

Need to i. reduce spending limits on campaigning; ii.cap donations; iii allow tax relief on donations; iv. matched funding from a national source to a relative limit (Power Commission); v.ban funding from unions.

Matched funding from a national source but individual entrepenurial spirit must continue to inspire public to contribute to local parties / candidates in first place within the clearly defined limits

I think the first point is that there are different levels of politics - although one is elected an MP as a candidate for a particular party, the office you hold is "The Member for <Insert Constituency Name Here>" - your job is primarily that of representing your constituents.

Logically therefore, because you are working for the state, the state should pay your wages - the proviso of course being that there are proper measures in place to look at expenses - no-one for example, would deny that an MP would need a constituency staff to help with their work, so long as the MP is not taking liberties to rip off the taxpayer.

The second level therefore is party politics. It's quite straightforward here - you are not working for the state, but instead to put forward a private citizens' agenda. Therefore it should be funded by private citizens. If we use the "market" analogy again, I think there is a strong case for arguing that the taxpayer should not be obliged to subsidise views that do not enjoy mass popularity - or indeed views that enjoy great popularity! Parties and elections should be free from state intervention, and therefore funding is one area that should be left untouched.

Does it have to be a single source? Maybe there could be a state allowance to parties topped up by private donations with a limit on the individual amount (which should be modest), these donations being scrutinised by an independent body.

A fee payable individually either through tax or at time of voting would deter many from voting at all. A tax credit is fine if you pay tax. the poor and many pensioners would not benefit or be encouraged to participate. The rich would neither notice nor care.

There should also be a means of contributing at both local and national levels or at one of these two only. 

A combination of the person promoting themselves (individually or as part of a group) and taxpayers contribution.

It should not be open to sponsors with a vested interest, to give even one thousand pounds to achieve advantage for their particular interest.

In the first instance the person promoting themselves needs some credibilty, the support at that stage could be given in the form of publicity (eg candidates contribute a page in a booklet) which is open to all bone fide candidates equally.

Once the election has happened there could be a retrospective payment towards proven relevant costs to a certain level to all candidates who achieved an agreed portion of the votes with those getting markedly more votes having a higher proportional payment.  The level of payment would also be related to the significance of what level the election is for and the size of the relevant constituencies.

Between elections there could be a payment towards proven relevant costs for those who were elected and (somewhat less) for those who achieved an agreed portion of the votes at the previous election for relevant publicity.

I have just read the contributions above, but left it until I had formed my own response.  My perspective is that of an electorally successful independant community group with a minuscule budget..

Public funding - linked to votes cast for registered political parties in elections

Individual funding - through membership fees and fees paid by members of affiliates (the tory clubs, trade unions, etc.)

A politician's salary or allowance should be paid by the state and they should claim expenses on the same basis as civil servants. Their administrative staff should be recruited by the state under the usual equal opportunities policies. Their political staff e.g. constituency workers should be recruited by their political party (or another transparent system to be devised for independents), again following all aspects of employment law. The practice of giving politicians an allowance to recruit their own staff shoudl end. We've seen recently where that money goes - to their families.

The state should fund the election campaigns of political parties up to an agreed level, perhaps recommended to Parliament by the Electoral Commission. Parties should be allowed to raise money to an agreed level on top of that, with monitoring and audited returns carried out at constituency level and co-ordinated by the central party. All donations over a very nominal amount, say £100, should be in the public domain, both individuals and organisations. (Including in Northern Ireland, where at the moment they are still confidential) There should continue to be a limit on the amount that can be spent on elections. Yes it's bureaucratic but it's essential to restore public confidence in the way political parties operate.

I  favour the system where the state allocates each voter a small sum and allows them to allot it to a party or candidate  separately from their vote (may or may not be the candidate they also vote for).  They have to do it when they vote.  It would apply to independent candidates too.  It would be necessary for them to show they had spent the money on political activity, much as with declaring election expenses now.  Most other state funding systems, if not all, would result in existing major two parties becoming effectively fossilised as official state parties. They would get state funding purely because they were already in power, and all new entrants would be starved out. 

Chris Padley

Parties should be funded solely through their membership fee with state
matching funds to bump it up to a usable amount.

Reducing the amount of finds available forces parties to spend money on methods
will actually be effective. For example, public billboards, whilst among the largest of
campaign expenditure, have never been shown to have any effect on voters. 

It would also encourage parties to seek out and reinvigorate their grassroots
movement, not only to get more money through membership but to use them to
spread the message for free. Less money is spent on a more effective and healthy campaign. 

I think that parties should be funded by the state and subsidies should reflect the number of votes it receives in elections. However, these subsidies should be limited to the very extend so that parties could not spend large amounts of money for political campaigns. Subsidies should allow parties to promote themselves but only in the ‘moderate way’. Generally it should not be like that, that the party invests great amounts of money in its campaign and then waits for the state to refund all (or almost all) of it.

Also the idea that has appeared earlier about giving voters possibility to allocate small amount of money to one of the parties sounds very interesting.

I am also not sure whether parties should rely mostly on membership fees cause if they are too high they can discourage the poor from participating in politics

Parties should certainly be funded by the state, and not via private donations. Their books should be 100% transparent, with every penny accounted for. Whatever system is arrived at to determine party funding, it must excise the role played by corporate lobbies.

"Who should be paying for politics?" is a very broad and wooly question. Some people have assumed you mean election expenses, others have referred to MPs expenses, other's the more general party funding for staff and research. No mention of course about politics outside the party system. So first request is for some definition of what we are discussing.

Secondly some common information would be of assistance to many. Perhaps a breakdown of the current funding of political parties. Some background here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6065322.stm

Personally I believe the parties should receive some basic state funding for research and policy formation. As they currently do.

For addtional funds, such as for elections and other communication expenses they should have to raise those funds themselves thorugh donations and subscriptions. (useful US background here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States) There should be a cap on election expenditure and on individual donations. A ban on political TV advertising should remain as should the wonderful party political broadcasts which help to level the playing field.

If we are to increase levels of political engagement in this country (and I believe it is important to do so) then politicians need to be forced to go and listen to people and respond to them. Having to ask them for £100 is going to sharpen their minds. At the moment the only voters who get listened to are those in marginal seats or with multi-thousand pounds donations to make.

{Ed. We did try to give some background information via a background article - it's in our Guidelines and Schedule

http://www.partyfundingreview.gov.uk/htms/download.htm

We also feel that, though the subject does indeed infringe upon many aspects of our politics, it should still be possible to discuss any one particular aspect.

Peter Emerson.}

 State should refund polical parties when taking part to election. However, I don't see why taxpayers should pay political parties that get less that 5% of the voters. State funding should be dependent on the result to elections..

Political parties should have the right to receive individual donations, up to, let's say £20'000/year.

Companies should not be able to donate money.

Political parties should be allowed to raise money by organising events or selling some litterature, etc... 

http://lecrochepied.blog.lemonde.fr

Just as the most important feature of democracy is a negative, the ability to vote our rulers out, so the funding issue revolves round a negative, banning the purchase of influence or power through large donations or contributions.

This leaves a limited number of alternatives, state determined funding, voted-for contributions from the state, membership fees and material help, and (not of importance at present or perhaps forseeably) business activities such as the sale of publications.

Each of these modes of funding is problematic. Membership fees are unproblematic from the point of view of distorting effect, except insofar as Trade Unions distort them in Labour's favour. The problem with them is the declining number of people prepared to take the trouble to join a party. State funding, whether determined by rules or by taxpayer or voter choice, is liable to distort democracy by introducing inertia and by the effect of the rules (e.g. a system which puts extra money towards minor groups tending towards the problems associated with proportional representation, i.e. putting unwarranted power into the hands of minor groups).

I do not believe these drawbacks can be eliminated. The best we can do is to mitigate them by a system which combines an element of state funding with membership fees and with donations capped at such a low level that serious undue influence is avoided.

Because of all the problems, limiting expenditure aimed at boosting votes will be a vital part of any acceptable system.

Finally, the effects of any new system will not be entirely predictable. There should therefore be a planned way of reviewing the system and tweaking it over time to produce results acceptable to the majority.

{Ed. ...or even, via a consensus vote, acceptable to (almost) everyone: i.e., the most widely acceptable compromise, the option with the most points.

Peter Emerson}

Who should fund those who aspire to serve? (Those who serve will I imagine be funded by the state or councils).