The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to make that point, but it is one with which I fundamentally disagree. This really is the heart of the matter, and I am glad that we have reached it. The view that money equals freedom in all circumstances is one that, as far as I can tell, only the US Supreme Court takes. I have great respect for the US Supreme Court, but very few other political systems take that view to that extremity.
Every other political system tries to balance the expressive part of spending money on a campaign—supporting a candidate by making a donation that the candidate uses to make their case—and the interest of equality of arms in the political system so that we do not have political system that depends on who has the richest donors. If one is to balance the two, one can conclude that the provisions are justified. Moreover, one must take the view that, to balance the two, one must be in favour of a cap on donations of any sort at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be arguing against any sort of donation cap under any circumstances; otherwise donors might be told that they cannot express themselves any more by making a donation above £50,000, £10,000 or £7,500. There must be a limit.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Howarth
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 13 July 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
496 c79 Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:10:09 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577111
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577111
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_577111