Introduction: the party funding paradox and attempts at solutions

A possible starting point for the consideration of party and campaign funding is Ambrose Bierce’s tongue-in-cheek definition of ‘elector’ as ‘one who enjoys the sacred privilege of voting for the man of another man’s choice’ (Bierce 1970: 20). Regardless of their origins and aims (the passing of policies that would realize their platform, support of specific individuals, or any combination of the two), parties, as Max Weber noted, ‘live in the house of power’ (Weber 2009: 1). They pool mass support and convert it into influence on the authoritative distribution of resources in society. However, the assumption that parties and their leaders are simply chosen by the constituents requires qualification. Where size and complexity entail the wide dispersal of the votes, most of the constituents do not cast ballots for themselves or for those with whom they are personally acquainted, but must choose among a limited number of alternatives set before them. Parties must therefore engage in candidate recruitment, longand short-term agenda setting, the organization of public opinion, and the two-way conduct of communication between leaders and led. These activities are usually not restricted to campaign periods. If the will of the elected is not coordinated with that of their supporters in the aftermath of elections, and if mechanisms for the transmission of demands from the bottom up are insufficiently effective, elections are liable to yield only fleeting results. In consequence, political parties form complex and continuous organizations that are able to operate (though not necessarily at the same level of intensity) in both pre-election and post-election periods. This hinges on the ability to raise and spend funds, and these undertakings themselves could provide a sense of participation and ongoing interactions between supporters, the various levels of the party organization, and the elected representatives. Since party expenditures are (directly or indirectly) funded by the citizens, and parties reflect and affect the distribution of power in society, what voters want and what is available to them is germane to the fortunes of individual parties as well as the party system as a whole. The consequent reciprocal relations between socio-economic and technological shifts and party funding help to explain the change in each. Developments that stretch over many decades rarely lend themselves to neat temporal divisions, all the more so where diverse political systems that are not subject to uniform type and tempo of change are concerned. Hence, it is prudent to draw a distinction between chronological time and the trajectory of change, and to focus attention on the latter. This allows us to discern two broad and partially overlapping phases in the development of party funding. The first was bequeathed in most cases from the period that preceded the emergence of modern parties (LaPalombara, Weiner 1966). The second phase crystallized, with few exceptions, under the impact of technological and economic transformations that altered the post-World War II social and political landscape, and is still dominant today.