December 2003 - Review of Electoral Acts

Election Spending

The limits on election spending which are provided for in the legislation have been the subject of much discussion, particularly in relation to the 2002 Dáil general election. This was the first general election to be held since the provisions in question came into effect. They had applied previously at the several Dáil bye elections which took place in the period from 1998 to 2001 and at the European Parliament election in 1999. Not unexpectedly, some difficulties were encountered in dealing with the new control and reporting requirements. A strict discipline was necessary on the part of participants to ensure that the legal obligations relating to election spending were complied with. For most, this would not have been a feature at previous elections in which they were involved. The learning factor applied not only to candidates and agents but also to the Standards Commission itself. It is hoped that the experience gained will be of benefit to all concerned and that many of the problems which emerged will not arise again in the future.

As is the case with donations, the legislation clearly sets out the items which fall within the definition of election spending. The legislation also prescribes how, and by whom, election expenses may be incurred on behalf of candidates and political parties. Within this structure, there is no reason why serious difficulties should be encountered by either election agents or national agents who are statutorily responsible for controlling and accounting for election spending.

The view expressed in the previous paragraph is predicated on there being broad acceptance of, and respect for, the role of agents and that candidates and political parties, at national and local levels, do not usurp that role by failing in one way or another to co-operate with agents. At the Dáil general election there was some evidence of poor levels of communication between agents, candidates and political parties. In a number of cases it was clear that there was a lack of appreciation of the legislative responsibilities attaching to agents. It is presumed that this was reflective of the fact that the election was the first occasion on which many of the participants had experienced the new controls which, as already stated, would not have applied at previous elections in which they were involved. It must be understood that election agents and national agents are pivotal to the successful implementation of the new regulatory regime. They should not, in any circumstances, be regarded, or treated, as having a peripheral or insignificant role to be dictated by the candidate or political party or, indeed, by local or national directors of elections.

In terms of providing clarity in matters such as what constitutes a donation or an election expense, an important feature of the legislation is the statutory obligation attaching to the Standards Commission to give advice in these areas, if such is requested. In an election situation, no matter how precise the legislation is or how detailed the guidelines are, there will always be occasions when a doubt arises in relation to a particular issue. The Standards Commission has responded to numerous requests for advice both during election campaigns and at other times. This advice service is available to all of its clients and, hopefully, those who have availed of it will feel that their query was dealt with courteously and effectively. With the benefit of practical experience, the guidelines published by the Standards Commission will continue to develop in terms of content and relevance so that they become more user friendly.

Back to contents