/ MEDIA STATEMENT / The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Today ActionSA stands as part of a number of organisations opposing what can only be characterised as a short-sighted application brought to the Western Cape High Court by My Vote Counts (MVC).

From the outset it must be known that ActionSA is not opposed to transparency in Party Funding. Truth be told ActionSA has led from the front in this regard through consistent funding declarations, consecutive clean audits and raising numerous issues of non-compliance by other parties with the IEC.

However, the application brough by MVC requires opposition because of its short-sightedness, its unintended throttling of party campaigns and the serious questions that need to be asked about the intentions of this organisation. 

My Vote Counts has approached this court asking that parts of the Party Funding Act be declared unconstitutional, specifically those parts that impose a R100 000 threshold for the disclosure of a donation and the R15 million annual limit. Their papers seek to reduce the annual limit from a donor and require that every donation be disclosed, irrespective of the size. 

It is critical to note that the Constitutional Court, in its ruling that occasioned the Party Funding Act, spoke about “reasonable access” to information about the funding of parties – in other words access was to be qualified by other counter balancing considerations. 

Any organisation with a practical understanding of our political democracy in South Africa, and with good intentions, would understand that this application does not assist our democratic project. Consider the following impact that the relief sorted by MVC, if granted, would have on our political democracy:

The real fight for transparency in Party Funding, following the initial gains in the establishment of the Act and the Constitutional Court outcome that occasioned it, is to fight non-compliance. Countless cases of clear non-compliance have been reported to the IEC, and publicly, and it has been the IEC’s approach to require complainants to prove a case to an absurd evidentiary standard rather than investigate these matters themselves. MVC’s approach is to impose more disclosure requirements that, judging by the status quo, will be ignored. 

The relief sought by MVC will have the effect of throttling party funding by small to medium sized donors who elect to make donations below the current threshold because they can do so without being disclosed and the consequent and real fear of political or economic reprisal. This, when considered against the absurdity of a small to medium sized donation buying influence in parties where campaigns run into the tens and hundreds of millions of rands demonstrates the short-sightedness by MVC. 

The reduction in the annual maximum of donations, currently set at R15 million, will similarly throttle party funding. The economic structure in South Africa, and the willingness of donors to be disclosed, has resulted in a very narrow donor community across all parties. Reducing this threshold would directly reduce funding to campaigns of parties and miss the obvious point – that such donors are being disclosed and, therefore, the constitutional principle of transparency is being achieved. 

Any relief sort which unnecessarily throttles party funding impacts our electoral democracy. The political choices of South Africans, especially given the prolific failures of established parties, is only as good as the ability of parties to campaign and offer political alternatives – and this requires funding. This is particularly felt by newer parties that have not yet won representation to the national assembly and, therefore, receive no state funding.

The bureaucratic nightmare that will arise from the relief sort by MVC, should it be granted, simply outweighs any further transparency gained. Both from the point of views of political parties and the IEC, massive expansions in financial operations will be required to record and report small-scale donations and track down data points from individuals in crowd funding mechanisms. Parties will effectively spend more on the financial operations required behind such disclosures than the donations themselves and based on the absurd notion that two strangers from different parts of the country would conspire with R10 or R20 donations to buy influence in a political party.

The assertion that all donors are would-be-corrupters buying political influence to advance their business interests is childish, especially when such donors are making donations that are disclosed precisely for the purpose of transparency and, if need be, investigation.

MVC adopts a tone-dead, Mary Antoinette type approach, by simply saying that the throttling of private funding is a good thing because the state should simply fork out more for parties to campaign – more than the already R1.5 billion per annum meted out to parties in parliament.

The effect of the relief sort by MVC, should it be granted, would be to create a political status quo on our country where voters are rejecting the status quo for its complicity in the crisis they face on a daily basis. 

To counter any losses in private funding arising from this application, the few prolifically state funded parties at the top of the spectrum will use their majority in parliament to direct more and more public monies to fund their campaigns than the already obscene amount of R1.5 billion per annum. Newer parties will be throttled and their campaigns will not reach as many communities and places and fewer and fewer voters will turn out to vote because political choices will have been narrowed through constricting access to voters. 

This brings us to the organisation MVC and its agenda which remains opaque. It is an organisation that has remained silent regarding the public complaints made against particular political parties for non-compliance with the Party Funding Act which is strange for an organisation seized by the fight for transparency in party funding. Its disinterest in non-compliance is strangely contradicted by its vilification of legitimate donors that adhere to the prescripts of the law and that are disclosed. 

And, perhaps of greatest interest of all, until recently MVC did not disclose its donors but now does after criticism from ActionSA. MVC’s donors are now named alongside a message which says “My Vote Counts’ funds comes from a diverse range of sources. Our donors have no material influence on our work and we are able to operate independently from these donors” – amusing for an organisation whose legal papers are premised on the idea what all donors are would-be-corrupters. 

Any understanding of the “reasonable access” qualification on party funding transparency imposed by the Constitutional Court would deem the relief sought by MVC to be inherently unreasonable. It is, however, time for a much broader conversation on Party Funding transparency which focuses on non-compliance with the Act and addresses the institutional incompatibility of legislators dumping investigative responsibilities on the IEC – an institution with no background or capacity in this regard.

ActionSA remains committed to leading the discussion around party funding but it needs to be sober and based on an understanding of the other important elements of our constitutional democracy.

Issued by ActionSA National Chairperson Michael Beaumont