Home page The issue isn't declaring funding it is the funding itself Many are troubled by the tiresome frequency with which British Members of Parliament, and the tiny private political party organizations whose instructions they follow, are exposed as being particularly fixated with the raising money and yet trying hide this fact, the source of such funds and who shares the funds, from the electorate. The frustration of the British electorate with this unseemly behaviour is understandable. It is after all the people of Britain who vote these individuals into office only to find that once elected they do not in fact represent their constituencies in Parliament but take all of their voting instructions from their political party. Our system of community respresentation continues on this embarrasing path because it does not provide a faithful representation answerable to each community. Between the community and the representative stand those small private political party organizations bent on power and receiving money in the name of supporting "their activities". Most funds provide by private lobbies come with an earnest hope that such contributions will bring them either personal or corporate advantage at some point in time. The system is fundamentally and openly corrupt. No amount of "regulations" drummed up by the very political parties and politicians, who gain direct advantage from such a cash flow, will ever succeed in removing the underlying influence of this funding. All politicians will insist that they are honourable and not corrupt and can be trusted to sort out the evolving mess. But the whole mindset of British politicians where they tolerate widespread nepotism funded through public funds only emphaises what a hopeless case these people are. If political party funds are the problem, get rid of them We all know that money corrupts. Therefore, in the name of straightforwardness and as a means for the British electorate to separate out the substantive individuals standing for election from those whose presence and impact rely so heavily on funded propaganda, public relations teams and a range of devices designed to mislead, the funding of MP activities outside the realms of public provisions for their salaries should be banned. In the case of political parties, these are private organizations whose main function should be advocacy along the same lines as non-governmental organizations. As non-governmental organizations they should not receive any state funding but rely wholly upon the voluntary contributions of their own individual members. As private organizations, political parties should not be permitted to pass funds onto Members of Parliament for any purpose on the basis of such party influence causing politicians not to pay too much attention to their constituents. Furthermore, political parties should also not be allowed to pass on funds received to support the offices of their elected members since this device is a convenient means of hiding sources of funds and influence over the MPs concerned. A need for independent and faithful community representatives The only sources of influence over MPs should be the wishes of their constituents. An effective way to temper the illicit influence over Parliamtntary decision-making by non-constituent organizations, companies and wealthy individuals is for the salaries of Members of Parliament to be paid directly by their constituencies on the basis of a levy. Any abuse in application of the monies they receive would therefore be an issue of the contract they have with their constuituents rather than with a political party whose fundamental interests lie with itself rather than the constituency. Credits: From Archives Section of February 2008 at Emancipation, an Agence Presse Européenne medium.