5,669
edits
Difference between revisions of "Cash-for-access (United Kingdom)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Cash-for-access (United Kingdom) (view source)
Revision as of 01:53, 20 May 2016
, 01:53, 20 May 2016no edit summary
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
</ref>. Often individuals embroiled in cash for access cases use terminology that suggests a particular sum of money can ‘open the door’ or ‘open doors’ to the office-holder in question (BBC 2010). | </ref>. Often individuals embroiled in cash for access cases use terminology that suggests a particular sum of money can ‘open the door’ or ‘open doors’ to the office-holder in question (BBC 2010). | ||
Cash for access is part of a wider set of informal practices known as ‘cash for favour scenarios’. Cash for favour scenarios are defined by the clandestine exchange of money for some type of privilege (Rowbottom 2010: 80). Two notorious examples that are also well-established in the British political and journalistic lexicon are ‘cash for questions’ and ‘cash for honours’. The term ‘cash for questions’ was coined in the wake of a 1994 political scandal, in which two British MPs were accused of taking money from lobbyists to ask questions in parliament that would benefit the lobbyist’s cause. Cash for honours refers to the awarding of life peerages to those who donated or loaned large sums of money to the governing political party, and is particularly associated with a political scandal of the same name under Tony Blair’s administration in 2006-7. The main feature that distinguishes cash for access from other cash for favour scenarios is that in cases of the former, financial inducement merely secures access to the office-holder and does not guarantee a ‘result’ or ‘benefit’ in return. Mere access to a politician may not directly influence their decision-making. In contrast, other cash for favour scenarios directly influence the actions of the office-holder. For example, in the 1994 cash-for-questions scandal, the money received by the MP Neil Hamilton directly influenced Hamilton’s line of questioning in parliament (Farrell, McAllister, and Studlar 1998: 83). | Cash for access is part of a wider set of informal practices known as ‘cash for favour scenarios’. Cash for favour scenarios are defined by the clandestine exchange of money for some type of privilege (Rowbottom 2010: 80)<ref>Rowbottom, Jacob. 2010. Democracy Distorted: Wealth, Influence and Democratic Politics. Cambridge University Press. | ||
</ref>. Two notorious examples that are also well-established in the British political and journalistic lexicon are ‘cash for questions’ and ‘cash for honours’. The term ‘cash for questions’ was coined in the wake of a 1994 political scandal, in which two British MPs were accused of taking money from lobbyists to ask questions in parliament that would benefit the lobbyist’s cause. Cash for honours refers to the awarding of life peerages to those who donated or loaned large sums of money to the governing political party, and is particularly associated with a political scandal of the same name under Tony Blair’s administration in 2006-7. The main feature that distinguishes cash for access from other cash for favour scenarios is that in cases of the former, financial inducement merely secures access to the office-holder and does not guarantee a ‘result’ or ‘benefit’ in return. Mere access to a politician may not directly influence their decision-making. In contrast, other cash for favour scenarios directly influence the actions of the office-holder. For example, in the 1994 cash-for-questions scandal, the money received by the MP Neil Hamilton directly influenced Hamilton’s line of questioning in parliament (Farrell, McAllister, and Studlar 1998: 83)<ref>Farrell, David M., Ian McAllister, and Donley T. Studlar. 1998. ‘Sex, Money and Politics: Sleaze and the Conservative Party in the 1997 Election’. British Elections & Parties Review 8 (1): 80–94. doi:10.1080/13689889808413006.</ref>. | |||
‘Cash for access’ is broader in scope than other ‘cash for favour’ practices. The term covers a range of practices – from the corrupt and potentially illegal, to others which are more ethically ambiguous, and widely and openly practiced as part of political life. A distinction can be made between cases in which an individual agent personally pockets the money, and those where the beneficiary is an institution – typically a political party. All the major UK political parties use fundraising events such as balls and dinners, which often include tickets costing several thousand pounds to be seated on the same table as eminent politicians. For example, the Labour Party was criticised in 2014 for allowing wealthy donors to attend a £15,000-a-head gala dinner without having to publicly register their names. At a similar event held by the Conservative Party in 2015, guests were invited to bid up to tens of thousands of pounds to have dinner or partake in other social activities with various politicians. Such events are often criticised by the media, but this does not appear to affect the practice of them. | ‘Cash for access’ is broader in scope than other ‘cash for favour’ practices. The term covers a range of practices – from the corrupt and potentially illegal, to others which are more ethically ambiguous, and widely and openly practiced as part of political life. A distinction can be made between cases in which an individual agent personally pockets the money, and those where the beneficiary is an institution – typically a political party. All the major UK political parties use fundraising events such as balls and dinners, which often include tickets costing several thousand pounds to be seated on the same table as eminent politicians. For example, the Labour Party was criticised in 2014 for allowing wealthy donors to attend a £15,000-a-head gala dinner without having to publicly register their names. At a similar event held by the Conservative Party in 2015, guests were invited to bid up to tens of thousands of pounds to have dinner or partake in other social activities with various politicians. Such events are often criticised by the media, but this does not appear to affect the practice of them. | ||
Although cash for access is closely associated with the institutional practices of UK politics, similar practices occur in other countries. In China for example, some cases of shouhui can involve the exchange of money for access to office-holders. Shouhui refers to the practice of office holders receiving unsolicited money in exchange for undertaking a specific action (Kwong 2015: 15). Despite shouhui cases often having a cash for access element, the practice is closer to other more illicit cash for favour practices (Navarro 2006: 169). Given that cash for access requires a certain set of institutional mechanisms to occur, it is perhaps unsurprising that in addition to the UK, its occurrence has been noted in other Westminster political systems such as Australia and Canada (Jabour 2015; McMenamin 2013: 135). | Although cash for access is closely associated with the institutional practices of UK politics, similar practices occur in other countries. In China for example, some cases of shouhui can involve the exchange of money for access to office-holders. Shouhui refers to the practice of office holders receiving unsolicited money in exchange for undertaking a specific action (Kwong 2015: 15)<ref>Kwong, Julia. 2015. The Political Economy of Corruption in China. Routledge.</ref>. Despite shouhui cases often having a cash for access element, the practice is closer to other more illicit cash for favour practices (Navarro 2006: 169)<ref>Navarro, Peter. 2006. The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Will Be Won. FT Press.</ref>. Given that cash for access requires a certain set of institutional mechanisms to occur, it is perhaps unsurprising that in addition to the UK, its occurrence has been noted in other Westminster political systems such as Australia and Canada (Jabour 2015; McMenamin 2013: 135)<ref>Jabour, Bridie. 2015. ‘Palaszczuk Rejects “Cash-for-Access” Claim, Saying Parties Need to Raise Funds’. The Guardian, January 22, sec. Australia news. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jan/22/palaszczuk-rejects-cash-for-access-claim-saying-parties-need-to-raise-funds.</ref>. | ||
Despite the relatively recent emergence of the term itself, cash for access as a practice can be seen as a historically embedded phenomenon within parliamentary life. Historical accounts of individuals able to buy access to office-holders stretch back to at least the early twentieth century. For example, Winston Churchill used his parliamentary connections to secure access to senior office-holders for Burmah Oil in 1923 (Jones 1991: 164). It is not always parliamentarians who receive the money that is exchanged in cash for access cases – they can involve any individual that has connections to an office-holder, who seeks to provide access for personal profit. For example, the 1998 ‘Lobbygate’ case involved the parliamentary aid Dereck Draper offering access to ministers to ‘those who could make their case’ (Theaker 2004: 77). Other high profile cases that have been exposed by the media include the 2010 cash for access scandal involving the Duchess of York; the 2012 cash for access scandal involving MP Peter Cruddas; and the 2015 scandal involving MPs Malcom Rifkind and Jack Straw – both former foreign secretaries. | Despite the relatively recent emergence of the term itself, cash for access as a practice can be seen as a historically embedded phenomenon within parliamentary life. Historical accounts of individuals able to buy access to office-holders stretch back to at least the early twentieth century. For example, Winston Churchill used his parliamentary connections to secure access to senior office-holders for Burmah Oil in 1923 (Jones 1991: 164)<ref>Jones, Geoffrey. 1991. Competitiveness and the State: Government and Business in Twentieth-Century Britain. Manchester University Press.</ref>. It is not always parliamentarians who receive the money that is exchanged in cash for access cases – they can involve any individual that has connections to an office-holder, who seeks to provide access for personal profit. For example, the 1998 ‘Lobbygate’ case involved the parliamentary aid Dereck Draper offering access to ministers to ‘those who could make their case’ (Theaker 2004: 77)<ref>Theaker, Alison. 2004. The Public Relations Handbook. Routledge.</ref>. Other high profile cases that have been exposed by the media include the 2010 cash for access scandal involving the Duchess of York; the 2012 cash for access scandal involving MP Peter Cruddas; and the 2015 scandal involving MPs Malcom Rifkind and Jack Straw – both former foreign secretaries. | ||
The perception of cash for access cases has changed dramatically since the early 1990s. A series of high profile scandals in both the Major and Blair governments has made the general public increasingly critical of ambivalent parliamentary practice (Farrell, McAllister and Studlar 1998: 80-94). Whilst the majority of these scandals were not cash for access cases, ambivalent practices in general have become associated with a deviant parliamentary culture rife with ‘sleaze’ (Flinders 2015: 244). Consequently, cash for access has become associated with a wider set of practices that are perceived as degrading British politics and undermining the transparency of political conduct. | The perception of cash for access cases has changed dramatically since the early 1990s. A series of high profile scandals in both the Major and Blair governments has made the general public increasingly critical of ambivalent parliamentary practice (Farrell, McAllister and Studlar 1998: 80-94). Whilst the majority of these scandals were not cash for access cases, ambivalent practices in general have become associated with a deviant parliamentary culture rife with ‘sleaze’ (Flinders 2015: 244). Consequently, cash for access has become associated with a wider set of practices that are perceived as degrading British politics and undermining the transparency of political conduct. | ||