US Presidential election funding compared to UK general election?

A UK general election will see thousands of candidated contesting 646 seats. The parties' campaign spending is not capped nationally, but it is capped in each seat contested. In the USA presidential election, by the time it is over, each candidate's campaign will have cost 10 times a UK general election. Does this mean money matters more than policy? Where does the bottomless pit of money come from? Should UK election spending be uncapped? Could parties here be state funded to end accusations of cronyism?

Public Comments

1. How the funding is obtained sounds different in the UK than it is in the US. In order to get federal funding for a campaign a candidate must get 5% of the popular vote during the primary elections. How they play with the rules in order to get as much federal money as possible follows that.
2. No, UK spending should not be uncapped. In fact, if anything, you could argue for a more stringent cap. Like the USA, people in the UK can buy influence. We have seen it with the Honours for cash scandal, where both Labour and the Conservative party were alledged to have sold honours for loans. Unlike the USA though, business has not managed to influence government policy on the environment, specifically on man-made global warming, carbon emissions and Kyoto. So no, in most cases in the UK, money does not matter more than policy. As for the USA, remember that Bush won his second election despite the country hating him over Iraq. That alone should make you wonder if money won over policy.