Friday, February 18, 2022
The art of soft money
Soft money in the United States involves donations to stand-alone political action committees, avoiding the restrictions that apply to elections. It is an alternative form of financing campaigns that "derives from a major loophole in federal campaign financing and spending law that exempts from regulation those contributions made for party building in general rather than for specific candidates".
It is only in the last twenty years or so that we have attempted to properly regulate spending by political parties in the UK, who can donate to them and the level of transparency that applies to those donations. Nevertheless, there are exanples of mechanisms being set up to circumvent that regulation and to bypass the spending limits placed on election campaigns.
Elected officials are also subject to rules as to the donations they can receive, and have an absolute duty to report and register all such money with the relevant authorities. Despite this, there are still ways and means that lobbyists, and those they are working for, can throw money at an issue in Parliament without that sort of openness. One such route is through All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
The Guardian reports that more than £13m has been poured into a growing network of MPs’ interest groups by private firms including healthcare bodies, arms companies and tech giants, fuelling concerns over the potential for backdoor influence.
The paper, alongside pressure group, openDemocracy, has found that more than half the total £25m in funding for all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) since 2018 has come from the private sector. Other funds for the 755 groups – a number that has ballooned from 560 five years ago – came from charities and trade unions:
On Thursday, the chair of the Commons standards committee, Chris Bryant, for the first time called for parliamentary authorities to have the power to shut down the largely self-policed groups where there are clear conflicts of interest.
Writing for the Guardian, he said it may be time to ban commercial operators from funding and running APPGs: “When lobbying firms are effectively driving an APPG in the interests of their clients, we should not only know who those clients are, but we should be able to close the group down where there is a clear conflict of interest.”
Bryant, whose standards committee has opened an inquiry into the system, added: “It feels as if every MP wants their own APPG, and every lobbying company sees an APPG as an ideal way of making a quick buck out of a trade or industry body.”
APPGs are informal groups representing MPs’ and peers’ interests, from China and Russia to cancer, digital regulation, longevity and jazz. They must be chaired by MPs but are often run or funded by lobbyists and corporate donors seeking to influence government policy.
The groups can play a key role in drawing parliament’s attention to overlooked issues, Bryant says. They host roundtables, produce reports, take overseas trips and lobby for change but receive no public money.
A number of APPGs are sponsored by companies with interests in the policy areas the groups seek to influence. In situations where there is no conflict of interest, concerns may arise over the perception of one.
As well as giving examples of ways in which donations have sought to influence the agenda of these APPGs, the Guardian also says that a thriving industry has also emerged around professional lobbying companies, sponsored by corporate interests, helping to produce reports seeking to influence policy, fund dinners or drinks, and take parliamentarians on free trips abroad:
All APPGs must be registered and provide funding details but most do not produce or make readily available a detailed breakdown. They are obliged to provide accounts on request, but half of 190 APPGs failed to do so when asked by openDemocracy.
APPGs are required only to complete a simple “template for income and expenditure statement” but this does not give the opportunity to provide many details. The alternative dispute resolution APPG’s form listed £4,501-£6,000 for secretariat services and £13,501-£16,000 for a visit to Singapore, with no further detail. The group was approached for comment.
Some APPGs, such as the group for the Celtic Sea and another for the wood panel industry, have a lobbyist as a secretariat but no figures for funding were published on their parliamentary registration page. Their chair was contacted for comment. Some other APPGs gave fuller details. On the comprehensive Pictfor website, accounts were uploaded to its blog section.
Steve Goodrich, of Transparency International, said: “From big tobacco to kleptocratic regimes, there are a plethora of interests behind these groups that remain [largely] unchecked by formal rules. Without greater transparency over lobbying, much of what happens in these groups will remain behind closed doors.”
I suspect this is also an issue in the devolved Parliaments as well, though nowhere near the scalw listed in this article. It is definitely time for reform.
It is only in the last twenty years or so that we have attempted to properly regulate spending by political parties in the UK, who can donate to them and the level of transparency that applies to those donations. Nevertheless, there are exanples of mechanisms being set up to circumvent that regulation and to bypass the spending limits placed on election campaigns.
Elected officials are also subject to rules as to the donations they can receive, and have an absolute duty to report and register all such money with the relevant authorities. Despite this, there are still ways and means that lobbyists, and those they are working for, can throw money at an issue in Parliament without that sort of openness. One such route is through All-Party Parliamentary Groups.
The Guardian reports that more than £13m has been poured into a growing network of MPs’ interest groups by private firms including healthcare bodies, arms companies and tech giants, fuelling concerns over the potential for backdoor influence.
The paper, alongside pressure group, openDemocracy, has found that more than half the total £25m in funding for all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) since 2018 has come from the private sector. Other funds for the 755 groups – a number that has ballooned from 560 five years ago – came from charities and trade unions:
On Thursday, the chair of the Commons standards committee, Chris Bryant, for the first time called for parliamentary authorities to have the power to shut down the largely self-policed groups where there are clear conflicts of interest.
Writing for the Guardian, he said it may be time to ban commercial operators from funding and running APPGs: “When lobbying firms are effectively driving an APPG in the interests of their clients, we should not only know who those clients are, but we should be able to close the group down where there is a clear conflict of interest.”
Bryant, whose standards committee has opened an inquiry into the system, added: “It feels as if every MP wants their own APPG, and every lobbying company sees an APPG as an ideal way of making a quick buck out of a trade or industry body.”
APPGs are informal groups representing MPs’ and peers’ interests, from China and Russia to cancer, digital regulation, longevity and jazz. They must be chaired by MPs but are often run or funded by lobbyists and corporate donors seeking to influence government policy.
The groups can play a key role in drawing parliament’s attention to overlooked issues, Bryant says. They host roundtables, produce reports, take overseas trips and lobby for change but receive no public money.
A number of APPGs are sponsored by companies with interests in the policy areas the groups seek to influence. In situations where there is no conflict of interest, concerns may arise over the perception of one.
As well as giving examples of ways in which donations have sought to influence the agenda of these APPGs, the Guardian also says that a thriving industry has also emerged around professional lobbying companies, sponsored by corporate interests, helping to produce reports seeking to influence policy, fund dinners or drinks, and take parliamentarians on free trips abroad:
All APPGs must be registered and provide funding details but most do not produce or make readily available a detailed breakdown. They are obliged to provide accounts on request, but half of 190 APPGs failed to do so when asked by openDemocracy.
APPGs are required only to complete a simple “template for income and expenditure statement” but this does not give the opportunity to provide many details. The alternative dispute resolution APPG’s form listed £4,501-£6,000 for secretariat services and £13,501-£16,000 for a visit to Singapore, with no further detail. The group was approached for comment.
Some APPGs, such as the group for the Celtic Sea and another for the wood panel industry, have a lobbyist as a secretariat but no figures for funding were published on their parliamentary registration page. Their chair was contacted for comment. Some other APPGs gave fuller details. On the comprehensive Pictfor website, accounts were uploaded to its blog section.
Steve Goodrich, of Transparency International, said: “From big tobacco to kleptocratic regimes, there are a plethora of interests behind these groups that remain [largely] unchecked by formal rules. Without greater transparency over lobbying, much of what happens in these groups will remain behind closed doors.”
I suspect this is also an issue in the devolved Parliaments as well, though nowhere near the scalw listed in this article. It is definitely time for reform.
