Select a region
Attempts to increase the amount individuals and political parties can spend on campaigning for the 2025 election will face a challenge in the States later this month.
An amendment to the States Assembly & Constitution Committees’ election plans has been submitted by Deputy Peter Roffey, who also told Express that other politicians have suggested that the existing cap is too high already.
SACC has proposed increasing the personal spending cap from £6,000 to £7,500, and the party cap from £9,000 to £15,000 subject to States approval.
But Deputies Roffey and seconder Tina Bury want to keep the personal cap at £6,000 and increase the party cap by a more modest amount, to £12,000.
“I am very keen to ensure that elections are as even as possible, and we don't give those with deep pockets an inherent advantage. Balanced against this must be allowing candidates to spend sufficiently to communicate properly with voters,” Deputy Roffey said.
“Even taking this latter requirement into account £7,500 spend per candidate seemed obscenely high. Indeed even £6,000 feels on the high side to me but I felt it probably wasn't practical to set the limit lower in cash terms than at the last election. So, we are suggesting freezing it in cash terms instead."
Pictured: Deputy Peter Roffey.
While the amendment proposes an increase to the party spending cap compared to 2020 levels, Deputy Roffey said it has been reduced by the same proportion.
Candidates involved with parties can transfer up to half of their personal allowance to the party, provided the total spent by the party doesn’t exceed the cap.
Deputy Roffey said they have canvassed the views of all deputies, and many have given feedback.
“Most of them suggesting that £6,000 still feels too high to them,” he said.
The election policy letter and amendment will be debated from 22 May.
Political parties could benefit from £6k uplift in campaign spending
Discussions to increase personal and party campaign spending
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.