link to page 1 link to page 1
Campaign monitoring: Options paper for the upcoming UK
Parliamentary General Election
1. Purpose
1.1 In our consultation document,
Better Regulation of Party and Election
Finance, published in July, we say that we intend to undertake some form of
campaign monitoring for each relevant election, using a risk-based approach
1.
1.2 This paper sets out options for campaign monitoring during the upcoming
UK Parliamentary General Election (UKPGE). It takes into account a range of
possible beneficial activities, different levels of coverage and the need to
obtain value for money. It also takes into account our role in campaign
monitoring and the benefit from this activity on encouraging compliance.
2. The Electoral Commission and campaign monitoring
2.1 The main purpose of this work has been to promote compliance by:
raising regulated entities’ awareness of the rules and our role in
policing them; and,
obtaining information on campaigning activity which can be used to
cross check campaign spending returns.
2.2 This campaign monitoring programme will form part of our wider risk-
based work allowing us to take a more evidenced based decision on which
parties we target to offer proactive advice and guidance. It also provides some
evidence to assess party, and to a lesser extent candidate, campaign returns.
2.3 Campaign monitoring has proven useful previously to identify issues
during the course of an election which have required advice and guidance.
For example, in the lead up to the 2008 London Mayoral elections the
Commission identified potential issues arising from fundraising activity. We
notified the party of our concerns and were able to secure the party’s
agreement to modify its behaviour to ensure they were doing so in
accordance with the law. In the European Parliament elections earlier this
year, campaign monitoring enabled PEF to identify third party activity, leading
us to establish contact at an early point to increase awareness amongst these
organisations of their regulatory obligations.
Why do we undertake campaign monitoring?
2.4 Our role in monitoring compliance regarding party and candidate
expenditure is part of
our statutory remit2 and we undertake this in a risk-
based way. Taken individually, or together, these statutory obligations provide
a solid foundation for undertaking campaign monitoring.
1
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/78912/Better-regulation-
of-party-and-election-finance-consultation.pdf (Pg.13)
2 Section 72-84 & 145(1) Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (PPERA)
1
link to page 2
2.5 The Political Parties and Elections Act (PPEA) introduces a new
regulated period for candidates’ election expenditure which will apply to the
UKPGE held in 2010. This new ‘long’ period will be up to the dissolution of
Parliament (from 1 January) while the existing ‘short’ period from dissolution
to the poll will remain. The extension to the regulated period will increase
controls of candidate spending and will mean the amount spent and subject to
controls will increase considerably too.
2.6 The legislative changes, combined with the high profile nature of the
UKPGE, will mean there is a high level of public scrutiny of party and election
finance in the lead up to the election. Public confidence and integrity of the
process is paramount.
Previous campaign monitoring
2.7 Experience from past election campaigns, particularly in the devolved
areas, is that general awareness among those we regulate that we are
undertaking some campaign monitoring tends in itself to encourage
compliance
3.
2.8 In recent years we have used a range of methods to monitor election
campaigning. Those used were primarily desk-based and involved direct
liaison with parties to discuss their campaigning, media monitoring to track
press advertising/use of billboards, and reviews of campaign literature. This
monitoring has proved useful and fit for purpose for European and Mayoral
election campaigns but for such a high profile general election it is worth
building on previous work and exploring further options.
3. Options
3.1 The options that follow outline various possible approaches using
different levels of staff time, activities and funds. We plan to undertake the
intensive monitoring from 8 weeks prior to the election date but will also
undertake light monitoring up until this period begins. The options are based
on a single, or combination, of activities. A recommendation drawn from these
options is presented at the end. The budget for this project is £14,900 up to
31 March 2010. There is a further bid of £7,500 (for the 2010-11 financial
year) which has yet to be agreed.
Option 1: Do nothing
3.2 This is our approach to monitoring campaign activity at local elections in
England. We consider these elections to be sufficiently low risk to the integrity
of party and election finance to justify no active monitoring. This is due to the
relatively small amounts of money involved. There is a high risk (reputation
and to our role as an effective regulator) that we are perceived (and do not)
monitor an area of regulated activity we are established to monitor by statute.
3
Campaign Monitoring Best Practice (v2).doc
2
link to page 3 link to page 3
3.3 This approach would reduce our effectiveness as a regulator, as we
would not be undertaking important work in monitoring campaign expenditure.
The lack of activity would potentially encourage some elements to adopt a
more casual approach to campaign expenditure or, in the least, no monitoring
would not discourage those we are regulating.
Option 2: Desk-based research
3.4 Desk-based research formed the core or projects in the past (2009
European Parliamentary and 2008 London Mayoral elections). The focus of
desk-based research will be determined on a risk basis, following the criteria
outlined in the consultation document
4. This focuses available time on areas
most likely to encounter non-compliance.
3.5 Desk based research (primarily web related) was undertaken for the
European elections by monitoring campaign activity via web/media
monitoring, though it was not possible to do this comprehensively across
England, due to the limited staff available to undertake this.
3.6 The purpose of this activity is to examine and evaluate the types of
online campaigning including press and web coverage of ongoing related
events. This includes election campaigning for the parties standing
candidates, the candidates themselves, and third party involvement.
3.7 There are several steps to the work
5:
An initial search and evaluation for central party, candidate, and
relevant third party websites to provide the base for campaign
monitoring.
Monitoring of party advertising on television, newspaper, websites.
Ongoing monitoring of activities on relevant websites such as
newspapers, YouTube, Twitter and blogs.
Continual monitoring (and a final overview on Election Day) of party
and candidate websites for changes, and monitoring of third party
websites and forums for traffic and other activities.
A detailed look at party and candidate websites for any resulting
changes, while blogs and third party websites were watched for
opinions and summations.
3.8 Although with its benefits for a Mayoral and European elections, this
option would not adequately meet our compliance needs or broader regulatory
objectives for such a high-profile election.
Option 3: Enhanced desk-based research
3.9 Enhanced desk-based research would be similar in scope to regular
desk-based research though with the added resource of agency staff
4
See Annex B: The Better Regulation of Party and Election Finance consultation (pg.14)
5 A spreadsheet has been developed for population
3
link to page 4 link to page 4
undertaking a range of information gathering activities in order to obtain more
information and enable us to cast the net further when monitoring campaigns.
3.10 This work would involve allocating these additional staff to focus on
marginal seats and areas of higher risk in certain regions across the UK,
based on risk analysis from criteria set out in the consultation paper and
Annex B below.
3.11 Existing staff would undertake the preliminary work in using established
spreadsheets to identify the constituencies we intend to target. Devolved
Office staff will have access to the selection tools to run selection criteria. The
hired staff will then be allocated a region and the main targeted constituencies
within that region.
3.12 The use of the additional staff (maximum of four) for campaign
monitoring is proposed to target areas of higher risk as per criteria listed in our
consultation document (see Annex A below). This will assess each electoral
area against certain criteria.
3.13 Agency staff would undertake the activities outlined in Option 2 providing
a more in-depth and widespread approach to that at previous elections and
enables us to target high risk constituencies.
3.14 Agency staff is paid between £14-16 per hour. Therefore, a combination
of four staff would cost approximately £540 each per week for a full, 36 hour,
work schedule. We would anticipate recruiting for the start of April and
potentially having them work three day weeks. This could amount to
approximately £12,182 – based on four staff and assuming that the election is
in June (8 weeks work). Prior to the arrival of agency staff, internal staff will
undertake light monitoring work to identify evidence of early pre-election
spending trend.
Option 4: The Partnership Approach
3.15 The partnership, in this regard, refers to working with an organisation
that is currently running a project that is pursuing a similar aim to that of the
Commission. We discovered a relevant existing project
6 during the European
elections and monitored the material being uploaded during our monitoring
work on this election. The Straight Choice (a non-profit venture run by
volunteers with experience in projects seeking transparency) is a real time,
web based, election leaflet project. The objective is to create a live
visualisation of party political leaflets as they are delivered across the country
during an election campaign increasing transparency. Members of the public
can upload leaflets on to the website via scanning or digital media.
3.16 Unsolicited material is an area of considerable expenditure for parties
7.
In 2005 it was 25% of Conservative’s total spend, 15% of Labour’s and 29%
6 TheStraightChoice.org - see Annex A
7 Election 2005: campaign spending (published March 2006)
4
link to page 5
of total spend for the Liberal Democrat’s. Illustrated on a local level around
75% of candidates contacted for the recent LGC Elections Centre research
project8 produced a leaflet for their respective local election campaign in
2009.
3.17 As a large proportion of candidate election expenditure comes from
unsolicited materials and as many allegations we receive originate around
leaflets, their distribution and their cost, we should focus our partnership on
this area of campaigning. During the recent European elections 42% of total
party spend was on unsolicited materials. Our involvement in such a project
should also go some way to act as a deterrent. Having considered this, and
what we want to achieve through campai
we believe that the
gn monitoring,
heStraightChoice.org convenient
T
ly fits into our work.
3.18 Benefit of selecting TSC as partner:
their goal is the transparency of party and candidate election
- their core objective is
materials
aligned with that of the monitoring
project,
unsolicited materials is an area of considerable expendit re for both
u
candidates and parties (84% of total candidate spend )9,
are flexible
the costs associated
and dependent on the extent of our
involvement, and,
this would meet a corporate objective by increasing the transparency
nd prov
of party and election finance a
ide a useful future archival
resource for future analysis.
3.19 Our role would primarily be to increase the amount of electoral material
channelled to the website. This would involve setting up a Freepost box so we
can receive election material and proactive
ly upload these onto the website. It
would also require participation by Co
r
mmission staff across the UK in gathe
material locally for uploading. We would also have a role in promoting and
advertising the site through a strategy agreed with the Communica
m.
tions tea
Our participation and direct involvement will add considerable value to the
existing resource. This option is like
e
ly to increase transparency and provid
the Commission with an expand
to look at campaign activity
ed resource
rough leaflet distribution across the UK.
th
3.20 From a media perspective the pr
oject can be promoted through TSC and
its associated web partners including MySociety, by-election and De
cracy
mo
Club
10. It can also be advertised through Commission external emails,
Aboutmyvote website and corporate website. There will also be an internal
ommunications element to engage Commission staff.
c
3.21 The cost for this option would be minimal through the provision of a
‘freepost’ box. Using a Freepost box would allow us to receive materials from
voters who do not have access to a scanner, thus increasing accessibility and
8 Local Candidates Survey: 2009. Rallings & Thrasher August 2009. Pg. 15
9 Local elections in Wales May 2008: Report on campaign expenditure by election candidates
(February 2009)
10 Further information in Annex A
5
engaging the community more widely, while also increasing our receipt of
unsolicited materials. The start up cost for a box is £122 (including a £45
deposit for the first amount of mail received), and would cost 24p per standard
envelope. The projected cost, therefore, for 4,000 responses would be just
ver £1,000 (including the start up).
o
3.22 There is some risk associated with this partnership, particularly
reputational, should the website cease to exist or those who set it up are no
longer able to continue. Clear parameters will be established with the external
body and what the Commission’s
ill be
role is within this partnership. All risks w
e believe the value in
assessed but w
the project outweighs the risks that
urrently exist.
c
3.23 Another potential risk is that we
to
get an unexpected number of returns
the Freepost box that burdens us with a significant unanticipated bill. We
believe this risk is sufficiently remote
ld
but should it transpire then we wou
close the freepost facility during the exercise. We would still encourage
material
members of the public to upload
using their own facilities or by
ending material di
s
rect to TSC.
Option 5: The Combination Project
3.24 This project would involve a combination of the above options
maximising resources and, along with devolved office activity, providing a
level of information that will give us a good evidence base for any compliance
or enforcement issues. It comfortably satisfies the project’s and Commission’s
objectives in this area. The project will incorporate the following as detailed
above:
Partnership with TSC
Freepost
box
Desk-based research (four additional staff)
3.25 It would have the Partnership Approach, including Freepost box, as a
base and would also include the hiring of work experienc
e staff (Option 3)
following elements from other options adding further value to the project:
3.26 The costs centre around those attributed to staff we hire to undertake
desk-based research. We would envisage, in the first instance, recruiting four
r
staff and. Further costs include the F eepost box, detail above. Total costs for
this option approximately £13,182.
4. Recommended action
4.1 The recommended approach for the use of campaign monitoring
resources is Option 5. This is based on a combination of reasons including
value for money, effective use of resources, deliverables, use of information
obtained and consideration of our regulatory objectives. The high profile
nature of the election, and potential risks to the Commission, has also been
taken into account.
6
4.2 This option would allow us to utilise our available resources both
effectively and efficiently for campaign monitoring. It would enable us to
gather sufficient information relating to the expenditure of parties and
candidates contributing further weight and evidence to aid both our proactive
compliance work and in dealing with allegations.
4.3 In order to reduce costs and maximise use of available resources we will
endeavour to use existing resource where possible (e.g. utilise any spare
space or physical capacity in regional offices) or combine project elements
with other related projects (e.g. election call centre staff).
Devolved office approach
4.4 The majority of the activities detailed are England focused and devolved
offices will undertake specific tailored programmes based on some of the
activities outlined above. Specific areas of work for the devolved offices would
be desk-based research within their areas, targeting resources as per the
campaign monitoring criteria above. A spreadsheet has been developed to
determine the areas of highest risk, which will be circulated for input from the
devolved offices.
Communicating approach to parties
4.5 There have been a range of approaches to communicating our
monitoring intentions and a few schools of thought on how much information
we should supply to parties. There is considerable value in giving parties
advance notice as it alerts them to our presence and adds to the deterrent
effect monitoring has. It also reinforces the compliance message and focuses
parties from an early stage.
4.6 Devolved offices inform the parties, usually via the PPP, that we will be
conducting campaign monitoring work and observing different areas during
the campaign. We tend not to go into any detail for obvious reasons, but it is
not hard for them to work out that we look at marginal seats and other high
profile seats etc. All offices follow a similar path and also advise parties at pre-
election seminars/training.
4.7 For the purposes of consistency, in the interests of acting as a deterrent
but also to give the project real value through limited disclosure it is proposed
that we follow a similar approach to the UKPGE. Parties will be informed that
activity will take place but will not be given any further detail. Parties will be
notified as soon as the election date is announced.
7
Annex A: TheStraightChoice.org (and partners)
The Straight Choice is a real time, web based, election leaflet project. The
objective is to create a live visualisation of party political leaflets as they are
delivered across the country during an election campaign. Members of the
public can upload leaflets on to the website via scanning or digital media. The
project commenced in April 2009.
The project and website is supported by volunteers and run by three people
who have considerable web-based electoral experience. The project is not
supported or affiliated to any political party and it is not promoting any reform
or change to the electoral system.
TSC works in partnership with other volunteer based websites to improve the
transparency of elections. These include:
www.mySociety.org
MySociety is built on volunteers; from simple things, like playing a game to
help us make sense of video from the House of Commons, or reporting a
broken paving slab, to building a new service with our data or helping us look
after one of our websites.
www.DemocracyClub.org.uk
Building a network of election volunteers to help mySociety and
TheStraightChoice in the run up to the next general election, and hopefully
beyond. In elections these days, all major candidates have a huge team of
volunteers behind them, helping them produce and distribute leaflets, get
publicity in the local news media, raising their profile and painting a generally
rosy picture of them.
But the public gets no such help. They are given election leaflets, party
election broadcasts, newspaper interviews with candidates, but they are not
given solid, factual information, or simple unbiased analysis of the truth value
of these publicity campaigns, especially not at a local level.
DC feel that the public needs its own team of volunteers to help them to
gather information on candidates, their leaflets, and local news coverage of
them; or publicise vote analyses in local papers around the country.
8
Annex B: The Better Regulation of Party and Election Finance
consultation (pg.14, para. 3.17-3.18)
Principles of our risk-based regulation
In parallel with our risk profiling of regulated organisations, we are now
developing a more rigorous method for evaluating high-risk electoral events
and prioritising our use of resources for campaign monitoring and the scrutiny
of spending returns. This will look at specific electoral ‘battlegrounds’, such as
constituencies in UK Parliamentary general elections, regions in European
Parliament elections and aspects of elections in devolved areas. It will assess
each electoral area against criteria including:
historic data or projections suggesting that the contest will be marginal
or particularly hard-fought
any evidence of significant funding flowing into organizations
campaigning in the relevant area, including locally-based parties and
the accounting units of larger parties, either via reported donations or
through transfers from other parts of an organization
any evidence of significant campaign spending by such organisations,
or by national organisations targeting activity in the area
any evidence that one or more candidates (or prospective candidates)
may have a higher than usual personal profile, for example where two
sitting holders of elective office are competing against each other
because of a boundary change, and
a historic record of non-compliance by one or more of the participating
organizations
We will draw on this assessment in planning how to deploy and prioritise our
campaign monitoring and scrutiny resources for major electoral events.
The extent of the monitoring we carry out will depend on our available
resources, the type of election and the risks (likelihood and impact) involved.
9
