In New Zealand, despite no evidence to support the contention that money has a massive influence in politics the Labour party passed the draconian and anti-democratic Electoral Finance Act.
The evidence in NZ is actually contrary to the opinion that money in politics can sway results. The Act party for instance spent a great deal more than any other party for a negligible return, same with Colin Craig. On the other hand the unions pour money into Labour’s coffers and get a good return on their investment.
In Fiji the news electoral laws forbid anyone or organisation other than natural persons from donating to political parties or candidates. This stops corporates and the unions donating.
Meanwhile the left wing continues to push for state funding of political parties, a system that rewards incumbency. They don;t want to have to bother with pesky things like members and sausage sizzles and cake stalls.
And of course there is Kim Dotcom who is making the mistake many wealthy business people make in entering politics, thinking that money can buy you votes.
In the United States however there is building evidence that big money, and by big I mean BIG, can and does make a difference in campaigning. Apparently 91% of the time the better resourced candidate wins.
There are few talking points more beloved by underdog political candidates (and their aides) than to declare that money doesn’t matter. (If it did, Steve Forbes would be the president!)
Well, they’re wrong — at least most of the time.
Take aÂ look at the chart below, created last month by Jasper McChesney, a designer at United Republic, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tries to spread awareness about the influence of money in politics. Â Read more »