This blog is hosted on Ideas on EuropeIdeas on Europe Avatar


How much does it cost to run a Spitzenkandidaten campaign?

Last year, we saw the very first European elections with Spitzenkandidaten (‘lead candidates’) put forward by five major European Political Parties as future president of the European Commission. But how can it be that the Juncker’s EPP reports ~€ 1.75 million in “Election campaigns” expenditure while Schulz’ PES reports only ~€ 0.2 million?

Jean-Claude Juncker, is now in office for one year. While Brussels is getting used to him – well, at least getting used to the long-time Luxembourgish prime minister now being Commission President – academic publications pop up studying the impact and significance of the Spitzenkandidaten process.

In my previous job at the EU office of Transparency International (TI-EU), I was monitoring with colleagues the transnational campaign. When I gave a presentation to Bavarian teachers at APB Tutzing about European politics yesterday (see program of their seminar), I was reminded that I hadn’t looked into this matter for a while and was curious to see whether there were new information out there.

While I was at TI-EU, we produced a Google doc and this map visualisation covering 250 selected stops tracking the campaign trail of the European candidates. A final Monitoring Report summarised the range of campaign activities for which European Political Parties most likely had to spend their own (European) money or money coming from national member parties.

Now, more than one year later, the financial reports of the European Political Parties for 2014 are public. They are not very detailed, but each of them contains an overview table at the end on income and expenditures in 2014, including an expenditure line called “Election campaigns”.

Here’s what each European party reports for 2014 for this expenditure line:

  • European People’s Party (Juncker): € 1,748,836.02 € [report]
  • Party of European Socialists (Schulz): € 196,971.34 [report]
  • Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (Verhofstadt):  € 196,594.57 [report]
  • European Green Party (Keller, Bové): € 537,416.61 [report]
  • Party of the European Left (Tsipras): € 60,171.38 [report]
  • Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists (none): € 97,955.55 € [report]

What do these figures tell us? A naïve interpretation would be that it cost about € 1.75 million to make Jean-Claude Juncker European Commission President. Compare that to the ongoing US primaries and the multi-million campaign accounts in place at this point in time…

More realistically, the figures tell us that each party seems to differ in what it thinks it needs to report as expenditure under “Election campaigns” in the financial reports. It’s hard to believe, for example, that the campaign of EPP/Juncker was 10x more expensive than the one by PES/Schulz and that the Greens/Keller, Bové, even with their primaries, spent more than double the amount of  PES/Schulz.

The question is whether this difference is a matter of reporting European-level expenditures in different ways, i.e. that actual campaign expenditures are covered in other categories of the party reports. The alternative would be that the difference is the result of parts of the campaign costs being covered from other sources, such as national campaign accounts.

In any case, we don’t know from the European parties’ reports how much money was spent on the Spitzenkandidaten campaign at national level through other sources, so the figures above are just a glimpse into a complex web of campaign finances few will actually know as a whole.

What this means is that political scientists (or anyone else for that matter) who want to really understand the European and transnational campaign including the financing* will have to do quite some digging and interviewing to get some realistic comparative figures. I think it would be worth the effort, because this will be valuable insights to understand changes for the future campaigns, the next one coming up in little more than three years.


Recent Articles

What is Brussels talking about (POLITICO Playbook edition)?

Published on by | 4 Comments

Starting Monday, I’ll be a teaching, for the second time, a two-week intensive course European Studies here in Munich, with students from Europe (including Russia), North America, South Korea and Australia. The course is covering mostly current European politics (elections, lobbying etc.) and European policies (the crisis, migration, climate change etc.), trying to convey what […]

How novel are Juncker’s investment plan and the EFSI?

Published on by | Comments Off

Tomorrow, on 24 June 2015, the European Parliament is expected to approve the legal details of Jean-Claude Juncker’s investment plan and the related European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). This plan has been sold as a major innovation, but our research has shown that it is actually the continuation of existing EU policies, just at […]

My EU Notes tumblr

Published on by | Comments Off

While this blog is clearly my long-form and research-focused online outlet, and while on Twitter I publish a mix of everything short that comes to my mind every day (polsci and non-polsci stuff), I decided I need something EU-focused that is shorter than PolSciEU but also longer and easier to link than Twitter. This is […]

Gender equality: the European Union’s DNA is not working!

Published on by | Comments Off

In its International Women’s Day message, the European Commission claims today that “Europe has been promoting gender equality since 1957 – it is part of the European Union’s DNA“. The problem with DNA is that it also needs activating, and EU reality shows that activating the gender equality genes at EU-level doesn’t really work: No […]

Women in power: recent research perspectives

Published on by | Comments Off

History and politics are mostly tales of men on the battlefield or men in dark suits, white shirts and a tie. And as Ewa Widlak showed in “2015, Women and Political Leadership“, only 7.3% of heads of state and 6.5% of heads of government are women right now, so the present doesn’t look much different. […]

The committee structure of the European Parliament visualised

Published on by | Comments Off

There are many ways to study the European Parliament. analyses roll call votes. looks into side activities and side incomes of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). And political scientists study the European Parliament’s gender balance and many other topics that are of interest to wider or more limited audiences. Anybody who spends time researching, lobbying or […]

Saving EU democracy: emotional intelligence or cold stupidity?

Published on by | Comments Off

Heather Grabbe and Stefan Lehne claim in a new Carnegie Europe report and a shorter op-ed that all it needs to save EU democracy is ‘emotional intelligence’. I doubt that this is what we need, even if ‘emotional intelligence’ sounds nice. The idea sounds nice, because the opposite of ‘emotional intelligence’ is probably ‘cold stupidity’, and […]

(No) Gender balance in political science publishing?

Published on by | 4 Comments

My discipline – political science – is far away from gender balance, especially at the top where men still dominate professorships. My impression was that this is also true for (peer-reviewed) publications – and a first look into the reality of 50 different journals seems to confirm this: 66% out of 749 recent research articles […]

[Highlight] Political science journals: An updated early access list

Published on by | Comments Off

To keep on top of the latest publications in political science, I try to follow a range of political science or related journals and the latest articles published therein. So far, this list of (mostly) political science journals and the links to advance online publication articles of these journals has just been a document on my […]

Subscribe to a fortnightly email featuring posts from Ideas on Europe hosted blogs

UACES and Ideas on Europe do not take responsibility for opinions expressed in articles on blogs hosted on Ideas on Europe. All opinions are those of the contributing authors.