Editorial | Buy yourself a democracy

Two years after its passage, large swathes of the new election and political party-financing law are still to be promulgated. Yet, as the continuing reverberations from April’s East Portland by-election remind us, there is much to be done on campaign reform, including, perhaps, amending the latest amendments.

Last month, the two candidates in that poll, the People’s National Party’s (PNP) Damion Crawford and Ann-Marie Vaz of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), met their obligation, within time, of filing expenditure declarations with the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) for their respective campaigns.

According to Mr Crawford, his campaign, in the month between the announcement of the election and the day of the vote, cost him J$4.75 million, or less than one-third of the J$15 million he was entitled to spend to promote his candidacy. Of the total, J$2.7 million, or 58 per cent, was from donations. It is not clear how much, if anything, the PNP contributed, but judging from the public statements, it appeared that Mr Crawford put J$2.05 million of his own money into the effort, representing 43 per cent of his expenditure.

The likely conclusion of people who understand the ways of political campaigns, or who have an appreciation of costs, would be that Mr Crawford and his handlers were either highly skilled managers who kept an exceedingly tight lid on costs, or there is much to be divulged in subsequent filings by the candidate himself, as well as the PNP.

The optics from East Portland, where the campaign had the hue of a national poll, suggests as much.

While Mr Crawford’s declaration elicited some questions, Mrs Vaz’s caused, initially, the collective arching of national eyebrows.

She reported having spent nothing, forcing the JLP into explanation and damage-control mode. The JLP was responsible for all spending in the winning effort, according to the party’s general secretary, Horace Chang.

“Financial control of the campaign was managed by the Jamaica Labour Party,” Dr Chang said. “That is the reason for the ‘nil’ declaration made by… (Mrs Vaz) in relation to the by-election.” The party now has until October to make its declaration on this spending, which Dr Chang says it will do.

Scepticism apart, that the Vazes – Ann-Marie and her minister husband, Daryl – didn’t directly dip into their pockets for a penny to pay a single campaign bill, the issue has highlighted an anomaly in the law that needs attention.

A candidate, whether an independent or someone running under the banner of a registered party, who assumes control of his campaign, including of expenditure, has up to six weeks to file his declaration to the ECJ. The law presumes that his organisation has kept detailed records, including of invoices, to support his filing, which, if required, would be available for inspection by the ECJ.

NO DISTINCTION

On the other hand, the central party with, presumably, a greater amount of organisational and management infrastructure, has six months after an election to file its declaration. The law makes no distinction between a general election, when a party’s reporting might include activities encompassing up to 63 candidates, and, as in a case such as East Portland, when it’s a single candidate.

In situations such as the latter, a party, if it requires it, has time to tidy up the numbers and get its sums right.

The East Portland campaign, too, will have, for many people, thrown up large questions about the cost of elections in Jamaica and what this portends for our democracy. Few people will be convinced that only J$30 million, which, by most interpretations, was the maximum allowable between two candidates, was spent in East Portland.

There are, perhaps, loopholes in the language of the law, which, when added to the tight campaign period to which it applies, can be exploited.

The ECJ should engage a conversation on these issues, lest our democracy does become the best one money can buy.