Proponents of state funding for political parties and the regulation of parties claim that a level playing field needs to be created so that poor parties are not disadvantaged. They assume that the more money a party has, the more likely it is to succeed in politics. The story of the Alliance suggests that such a correlation is incorrect. The Alliance's rise and fall suggests that if any correlations exist between money and politics, it is actually this: the more wealthy a party becomes - the less political success it obtains! This is because the Alliance was most successful when it had virtually no financial resources, and quickly declined as an electoral force in proportion to its gain of significant funding. [Read more below]
Formed in 1991, the party had few capital resources in its early years, especially because it had access to very few parliamentary resources. At the 1993 election it spent about $500,000, and gained its highest vote – 18.2%. At the next election it increased its expenditure to $800,000, but its support declined to 10.2% of the vote. From this point the party had access to millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded resources, and it also had improved private funding, which meant it could spend about $940,000 at the 1999 election. Yet its vote declined further to 7.7%. Then, because it went into government with Labour, it received a substantial boost in resources through parliament. Such resources became part of a vicious internal dispute, and in the following election the party received only 1.3% of vote (after spending about $215,000). This story suggests there is a correlation between the party’s increased professionalisation and its decline in popular support. Although this might not be a real correlation, it does suggest a certain irrelevance of money in determining electoral success. Moreover it suggests that other political factors might be more important than professionalisation in explaining political success. For instance an argument might be made that the Alliance’s decline mirrored the party’s erosion of ideology - at every subsequent election the party took a more watered-down programme to voters. Likewise, it might be argued that the party was adversely affected by the erosion of its membership and the decreased involvement of activists. The story of the rise and fall of the Alliance party provides a good example of how the resources of a party do not necessarily determine electoral success.
