Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The party politics literature has shown that parties being mostly reliant on state funding (as in most of Europe) is more conducive to equal representation than them being mostly reliant on big donors (as in the US and UK). But what do citizens think? Relatively little attention has been paid to public opinion on party funding. We only know that citizens tend to instinctively oppose both ways of funding parties. Yet, party funding is not a salient issue except in times of scandal, meaning it is an issue on which citizens are ill-informed. In this paper, I test what happens when citizens in the UK and Denmark are exposed to arguments in support of state party funding, through survey experiments. I find that highlighting state funding’s ability to reduce party reliance on big donors substantially increases support for the policy, especially among low trusting Britons.

Keywords

party funding campaign finance trust in parties framing survey experiments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bowler

Donovan

(2016) Campaign money, congress, and perceptions of corruption. American Politics Research 44(2): 272–295.

Chong

Druckman

(2007) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 101(4): 637–655.

Ciuk

Yost

(2016) The effects of issue salience, elite influence, and policy content on public opinion. Political Communication 33(2): 328–345.

Dalton

Weldon

(2005) Public images of political parties: a necessary evil? West European Politics 28(5): 931–951.

Dalton

Farrell

McAllister

(2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Diamond

Gunther

(2001) Political Parties and Democracy. Baltimore; London: John Hopkins University Press.

Electoral Reform Society (2016) BMG UK Omnibus Results. Birmingham: BMG Research.

Evans

(2021) Reforming Party Funding Arrangements. London: Committee on Standards in Public Life. Available at: https://cspl.blog.gov.uk/2021/10/13/reforming-party-funding-arrangements/.

Gilens

(2009) Preference gaps and inequality in representation. PS: Political Science and Politics 42(2): 335–341.

10.

Gilens

(2012) Affluence and Influence: Economic Inequality and Political Power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

11.

Gilens

Page

(2014) Testing theories of American politics: elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.

12.

Hameleers

de Vreese

(2020) To whom are “the people” opposed? Conceptualizing and measuring citizens’ populist attitudes as a multidimensional construct. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 30(2): 255–274.

13.

Holmberg

(2003) Are political parties necessary? Electoral Studies 22(2): 287–299.

14.

Hopkin

(2004) The problem with party finance. Party Politics 10(6): 627–651.

15.

Hummel

Gerring

Burt

(2021) Do political finance reforms reduce corruption? British Journal of Political Science 51(2): 869–889.

16.

IDEA (2014) In: Falguera

Jones

Ohman

(eds). Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns: A Handbook on Political Finance. Stockholm: International IDEA. Available at: https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/funding-political-parties-and-election-campaigns-handbook-political-finance.

17.

Ignazi

(2017) Party and Democracy: The Uneven Road to Party Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18.

Katz

Mair

(1995) Changing models of party organization and party democracy: the emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics 1(1): 5–28.

19.

Kelly

(2011) Political Party Finance: Ending the Big Donor Culture. London: Committee on Standards in Public Life.

20.

Klinger

Koc-Michalska

Russmann

(2023) Are campaigns getting uglier, and who is to blame? Negativity, dramatization and populism on facebook in the 2014 and 2019 EP election campaigns. Political Communication 40(3): 263–282.

21.

Kölln

A-K

(2016) Does party finance regulation create a level playing field? Election Law Journal 15(1): 71–82.

22.

Koss

(2011) The Politics of Party Funding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

23.

Leeper

Slothuus

(2018) Can citizens be framed? How persuasive information more than emphasis framing changes political opinions. (Working paper). https://thomasleeper.com/research

24.

Lessig

(2015) Republic, Lost. 2 ed.. New York: Hachette Book Group.

25.

Linz

(2002) Parties in contemporary democracies: problems and paradoxes. In: Gunther

Montero

Linz

(eds) Political Parties: Old Concepts and New Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

26.

May

(2022) Public Opinion on State Party Funding. Aarhus. Aarhus University Press. PhD dissertation.

27.

Nassmacher

K-H

(2009) The Funding of Party Competition: Political Finance in 25 Democracies. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

28.

Neill

(1998) The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom. London: UK Government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-funding-of-political-parties-in-the-united-kingdom--2.

29.

Nwokora

(2015) Sceptical partisans: how citizens think about political finance. Australian Journal of Political Science 50(1): 73–92.

30.

Piccio

van Biezen

(2018) Political finance and the cartel party thesis. In: Mendilow

Phélippeau

(eds) Handbook of Political Party Funding. Cheltenham: Elgar, 68–84.

31.

Power

(2020) Party Funding and Corruption. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

32.

Primo

Milyo

(2020) Campaign Finance and American Democracy: What the Public Really Thinks and Why it Matters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Rose-Ackerman

(1999) Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

34.

Scarrow

(2006) Party subsidies and the freezing of party competition: do cartel mechanisms work? West European Politics 29(4): 619–639.

35.

Scarrow

(2007) Political finance in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Political Science 10(1): 193–210.

36.

Scarrow

(2018) Political finance regulation and equality: comparing strategies and impact. In: Mendilow

Phélippeau

(eds) Handbook of Political Party Funding. Cheltenham: Elgar, 103–125.

37.

Thompson

(2018) Theories of institutional corruption. Annual Review of Political Science 21: 495–513.

38.

UK Electoral Commission (2006) Public Perspectives: The Future of Party Funding in the UK. UK Electoral Commission. Available at: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/electoral_commission_pdf_file/Deliberativeresearchonpartyfunding_23694-17576__E__N__S__W__.pdf.

39.

Uslaner

(2017) The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust. New York: Oxford University Press.

40.

van Biezen

(2004) Political parties as public utilities. Party Politics 10(6): 701–722.

41.

van Heerde-Hudson

Fisher

(2011) Parties heed (with caution): public knowledge of and attitudes towards party finance in britain. Party Politics, 19(1), 41-60.

42.

Warren

(2006) Political corruption as duplicitous exclusion. Political Science & Politics 39(4): 803–807.

43.

Zmerli

van der Meer

(2017) Handbook on Political Trust. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.85 MB

The worthy and the fallible: Framing the issue of state party funding

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material