I received figures this morning documenting all candidates expenses and returns for the recent local elections. These were made available to all elected members and as a candidate I also requested and received a copy.

Interesting to dissect the different trends. In deference to the different individuals, I do not intend to treat of any specifics but I may well look at which patterns emerge. A quick perusal does not appear to identify many correlations however. Some of the highest spending candidates bombed out of their races at early stages whilst some of the lowest spending candidates got elected. Which is encouraging in a sense for democracy. Although what does seem to have made a difference is incumbency. Generally speaking, those low spending sucessful candidates were outgoing members, or in some cases “inheriting” a seat.

Also in relation to donations, there is not an obvious pattern. Some left / independent candidates received at least as many donations as ‘mainstream’ party political candidates. There may almost be an element of overcompensation, people may be more inclined to support an independent financially thinking “they need it to compete with the big boys”. Whilst in some cases those “big boys” have in fact the same or less resources. There are also many differences across different candidates within the same parties which is interesting too.

The only finding that can really be drawn from this cursory initial inspection is to highlight the extent of the individual in local politics. Whips and party politics tend to apply less within the operation of local government and it would appear for campaigning purposes too.

There’s been a lot of talk recently about money in politics. From expense accounts and their abuse to donations and apparent banning of same, the topic seems inextricably bound with politics and has ever been so. It is ironic perhaps that we are possibly now regulated more than ever in much of this. There are a variety of angles I might comment on, but in the main the reason for this post (series of posts) is to make publicly available all my own spendings, sources and financial transactions over the time I was seeking election.

Before I get onto the detail of my own financials, let me comment in a more general sense. There’s been a lot of talk about vouched expenses recently with much of the implication being that an unvouched system is a blank cheque for back pockets, and also a kind of lazy assumption that the higher the spend the greater the abuse.

Undoubtedly there has been abuses, and some chronic ones and it is not confined to any one side of the house either, from the Fine Gael double jobbing couple to our race loving Ceann Comhairle (no link needed!). But I believe the majority of parliamentarians to be honest brokers going about their business and I know the various expense systems usually are direct compensation for outgoings undertaken in the course of official business. Also whilst vouched expenses will presumably elevate transparency, any hope of savings to the state from same may be misguided, as the vouched total could tally to considerably more. A good example is a constituency office where the current allowance in the region of thirty thousand a year, ask any businessman what it would cost to rent, kit out and staff a main street drop in centre (which is effectively what it is) and you won’t be seeing change from the 30K in fact a lot more will be sought. The reality is that most TDs subsidise their local offices, with pehaps some money from other allowances being carried over. Another example is the mobile phone allowance (which doesn’t exist) leading to the monies being inaccurately but not dishonestly being logged under car kit hire or some other anachronism. Equally the Deputy from West Cork may have the highest mileage allowance but due to geography more than avarice.

There is another angle on all this of course as well, I know one local Councilor who boasts of his ascetism in never attending conferences, but is this a sensible cost saving measure or a dereliction of duty? Surely one should do the job one is elected to do even if that does entail certain expenses at times.

All these discussions of course generally concern amounts claimed from the public purse whilst on official business. Another whole side of it and sometimes confused are the expenses accrued during election time, which perhaps contrary to some perceptions, are not supplied or recoverable from any public purse, be the candidate successful or otherwise. The simple fact is that politics costs money, to partake and compete in the political process costs money and there is not yet a satisfactory system that both levels the playing field and mitigates against abuse.

It costs money to run for office. Either we only allow the rich to apply or we come up with a system where campaigns can be legitimately funded. I’m not sure what the perfect system is but we sure aren’t there yet.

Over the next couple of posts I’m going to document my own outlays and how I financed them and perhaps have a discussion on the whole process along the way. More later..