Dominic Hannigan (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to discuss again the issue of electoral reform. My party has been campaigning for limits on election expenditure for a long time. We are glad, therefore, to see this legislation before the House. It is important but it is only one of the electoral reforms we would like to see. It is not before time. There are obvious disappointments, which are perhaps unavoidable given the rushed and last-minute nature of this Bill. The 60-day spending limit is unlikely to stop a determined candidate with considerable financial resources from trying to spend his way to election victory.

In my area, some candidates have been advertising since Christmas in the local papers with a view to making their names known. I do not know their names but know their pictures and it is therefore clear the advertisements are having some effect. One of the problems is that people with vast sums of money can spend like there is no tomorrow until the limit kicks in. I regret that the Minister did not accept an amendment in the Dáil from my colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, that sought to extend the period in which spending is limited. However, given that this Bill is late, I accept an issue arises with regard to retrospection.

Local and town council elections should never require election war chests comprising tens of thousands of euro. Even if one ignores the questionable ethics of spending such large sums, one will note there is a basic cost-benefit equation to be considered. In an article in The Sunday Business Post in 2005, the political scientist Liam Weeks pointed out that in the local elections of 2004 a Fianna Fáil candidate in the north inner city spent €28,000 on a campaign but was beaten by a Sinn Féin candidate who spent just €2,000 and an independent candidate who spent just €4,000. Therefore, it is not always a question of how much one spends. As Senator Coffey stated, it is about meeting people and ensuring one gets ones point across and, as Senator Boyle stated, it is about ensuring one convinces people one is the best person for the job. I accept money is not always the means by which one wins an election but there is no doubt it helps.

It has been stated that one of our colleagues spent approximately €40,000 on the local election campaign in 2004. I happen to believe this colleague would have won a seat having spent only half that sum and therefore do not believe it is fair to criticise the Senator in this case. During the last local election campaign in my county of Meath, two candidates, both of whom were elected, spent more than €25,000. There is no doubt that money helps but it does not guarantee one a seat by any means.

Professor Alan Ware, professor of politics at Oxford University, described electoral spending limits as the most effective way to stop the feeding frenzy that happens when one candidate starts spending money, thereby forcing others to do so as well. Research on spending in Irish political campaigns is thin on the ground but an interesting study was carried out in March 2003. It was a quantitative study on election spending in the 1999 local elections to determine whether money mattered. The study examined the amounts spent in each constituency and found that increasing total spending from 2% to 25% increased a candidate's chances of getting votes by 6.6% for a challenger and 6% for an incumbent. This is very significant given that the average vote obtained by candidates was just 8%. While it might be outlandish to apportion 25% of the total electoral spend to any one candidate, it has occurred in numerous constituencies. While it is not always successful, it is clear that it is dangerous and setting an unnecessary precedent. The authors of the study concluded by arguing that candidates who spend a larger share in their districts win a larger share of the votes. This applies in general terms. It is clear that even in the smallest constituencies, spending can win one votes. This raises a question about democracy in that the more money one has, the greater one's chance of being elected. For poorer candidates, candidates associated with parties with less money than others and independent candidates, it is more difficult to get elected.

Let us consider the sources of election funds. Senator Mullen mentioned race nights in this regard. Given the nature of such events, people do not necessarily have to say how much they are spending on horses. As a consequence, it is difficult to know whether the limits on donations to a campaign are being observed. The sources are very important because very few people contribute to election campaigns for altruistic reasons. People contribute because they expect to see a financial benefit. I know of candidates who have taken contributions from developers. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this but it begs the question whether the developers expect favours in return, such as rezoning. The ethics of taking money from those who expect a financial return must be considered. In some other countries, one way of obtaining an ambassadorship is by making contributions to the funds of particular politicians. It is clear there are benefits in this regard. Senator Mullen mentioned that individuals contribute to campaigns if they hope their investment will lead to a change in the law that might benefit them or endorse their points of view. The sources of funding and the reasons contributions are made must be considered.

On the issue of posters, reference was made to the timeframe in which postering is allowed. I am glad there is additional clarification on this issue. I ask for leeway with regard to poster removal. Like Senator Mullen, I believe the seven-day period for removal is very narrow. Most candidates enter local arrangements with their local authority regarding the removal of posters. Many candidates in this House will have experienced posters going missing during election campaigns for whatever reason. I do not know whether it is due to devilment.