Election 2005: campaign spending - Electoral Commission

33Figure 6: Comparison of proportion of limit spent by all candidates and elected candidates35%Proportion of all candidates30%25%20%15%10%5%0%All candidates (3,554)Elected candidates (646)0 1–10 11–20 21–30 31–40 41–50 51–60 61–70 71–80 81–90 91–100 100+% of limit spentReturns4.19 The election in 2005 was the first generalelection for which the Commission had a rolein monitoring candidates’ compliance. Ourwork at other elections in the previous twoyears identified areas which we consideredcould give rise to material risks. As a result,the Commission’s compliance team developeda new framework for assessing the complianceof candidates’ expense returns to be appliedfor the first time at this election.4.20 Direct comparisons of the outcomes ofreviews of candidates’ returns from previousyears are harder to make, as different criteriahave been used to assess them. There is,however, anecdotal evidence to support theview that candidates and their agents weremore aware of the legislation and thereforelevels of compliance appear to have beenhigher. For example, the Commission revieweda sample of council candidates’ returns for theEnglish local elections in 2003; out of thesample, which represented 3,299 candidates,there were 189 candidates who failed to submita return (6%); in 2005 this figure had droppedto 50 (1.4%).Disputed Incurred Notional Incurred Totalclaims prior to expenditure for purpose (£)(£) becoming a incurred other than thecandidate (£) (£) election (£)27,713 367,842 2,565,483 45,161 11,546,3900 53,322 37,399 2,565 526,616197 121,807 139,800 3,083 1,249,8694,427 34,376 114,265 582 849,08532,337 577,348 2,856,947 51,391 14,171,960Elections 2005: campaign spending: spending by candidates