How are political parties in the UK supposed to raise enough money for effective election campaigns without being accused of sleaze and political back-scratching ?

In the past they have relied on state funding as well as large corporate donations to meet the increasingly steep costs of campaigning.

Recently the Labour party accepted a £1m donation from Formula One racing boss Bernie Ecclestone. The donation caused an outcry and the party later returned the money.

Now the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life has called for sweeping reforms that aim to create a cleaner and more open system.

Lord Neill's committee has recommended a £20m limit on the amount of money spent on election campaigns, an annual publication of all donations and to outlaw contributions from foreign nationals who do not have a vote or a legitimate business interest in the UK.

A powerful new watchdog - the Electoral Commission will enforce the new rules.

Do you think this is enough to take the sleaze out of political funding? Is it really necessary?

Neill Committee member Professor Anthony King thinks capping election spending would quash the ideas that political parties are up for sale, or that politicians are out to buy votes.

"One of the real problems of the last few years has been that the parties have had to raise very large sums of money. And they have done so in ways that have often seemed pretty murky," he said.

However it is feared that the proposals are so dramatic that the UK Government will not have time to draw up the legislation before next year's series of elections.

Do political parties spend too much at election time? Should they have to explain where all their funds come from?

What do you think?

Should political funding be regulated?

Your reaction in full

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | ©