Reforming how we fund campaigns

I remind you of a simple saying which I am sure all of us have heard - and may even have repeated - 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. Putting it bluntly and somewhat crudely - all over the democratic world - the wealthy few too often 'pay' the piper - the politician and the bureaucrat - with favours, with money, property and benefits. They then call the tune - they exercise disproportionate power and derive disproportionate benefit from the authorities.

When this situation goes unchecked, as in Jamaica, is it any wonder that so little actually gets down to the majority, to provide services for communities, to help the vulnerable and to empower the disadvantaged?

This is a challenge facing not only Jamaica but every single democratic country in the world. The challenge takes many forms - how to get the rich to pay their fair share of taxes when they are the very ones who exercise disproportionate influence on policymakers, on those who make and enforce tax laws, and, very often, they own the media and are able to shape public agenda and even public opinion in their favour? Every democracy faces the challenge of how to make sure that contracts to build roads, to fix bridges, to provide utilities are awarded on merit, are executed efficiently, and not to contractors because they give or promise a percentage kickback to politicians, or bureaucrats and correspondingly inflate the cost of the contract to the taxpayer?

We in Jamaica and, indeed, our partners across the Caribbean, are now trying to better come to grips with the issue - of "he who pays the piper calling the tune", while the rest of us, those who democracy says should be in charge, have no choice but to listen to whatever tune is played.

One important way to deal with this is to develop and to enforce rules relative to the finance of political parties, political candidates and political campaigns. These rules exist and are enforced - far from perfectly - but they exist and are enforced in most democracies. The bad news is that such campaign-finance rules do not exist in Jamaica or in the Caribbean. The good news is that the prime minister put this issue once again on the public agenda last May and definite proposals are now on the table for the first time in our 50th year of Independence. They have been developed by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), in consultation with representatives of the political parties who sit on the ECJ, and with representatives of the private sector and with civil-society organisations.

First of all, a limit must be placed on how much any individual or organisation can give to a political party, a political candidate or election campaign. In other words, a cap must be put on how much any piper can be given. Right now, there is no limit on how much a big businessman, a big bank, a foreign company or a big contractor can give in order to put, or at least with the likely effect of putting a party, a politician or a minister in his pocket. The ECJ is saying - and I, as well as the Jamaica Civil Society Coalition (JCSC) to which I belong, agree - that this situation cannot be allowed to continue. A limit must be legislated, checked and enforced on contributions before the next election.

Second, not any and everybody should be permitted to contribute to political parties, to political candidates and to campaigns. The ECJ proposes, and the JCSC and I agree, that "unregulated financial organisations", like Olint and Cash Plus, and so many others which still function must be banned from making contributions to parties and to campaigns. Similarly, it is proposed that foreign governments or their agencies be banned. I would propose that foreign companies like Trafigura or Mabey & Johnson should be added to the list of banned donors.

Enforced cap on expenses

Third, the ECJ proposes - and I, along with the JCSC agree, that there must be an enforced cap on how much a political candidate or a party can spend in a constituency or on an election campaign. Elections must cease being spending jamborees in which the sky is the limit, in which the biggest spenders have the biggest advantage and in which those less able to mobilise funds are at a disadvantage.

Fourth, to reduce the influence of the moneybags, the recommendation is not only to limit how much can be given and how much can be spent, but, as well, for the taxpayer and the public to be able to contribute limited sums to offset the influence of private interests to candidates and to parties! but only to those who comply with election rules - rules such as no intimidation and no violence.

A fifth recommendation is most important. It is that each political party must disclose annually, and each candidate in respect of the campaign period must disclose to the ECJ, full details of all donors, of all its income and expenditure. In this regard, any donor to a party who has received a government contract within a year prior to the election must be disclosed to the public.

Of course - I hear you say - these recommendations are all well and good but they shall serve little purpose unless the authorities, in this case the ECJ, possess the requisite resources to check compliance, to detect breaches and to impose meaningful penalties on a party or on a candidate who violates the law. Significantly, therefore, monitoring powers and enforcement mechanisms form part of the recommendations of the ECJ.

My considered belief that if these recommendations were to be accepted, legislated and enforced, we would make significant headway to remove ourselves from the unacceptable situation wherein the few "who pay the piper calls the tune". And there has been some progress towards this end - there are MPs on each side of the aisle who I am certain have been and remain in support. The prime minister and his office have been supportive. The PNP has said it is in support of full disclosure of all donors. Leading personalities in the private sector and the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica have joined the JCSC in support of the ECJ recommendations.

But make no ghost fool you - there is, as you would expect, much opposition from these who, now and for so many years gone have paid the piper and have benefited from calling the tune. Equally, even those who now support shall weaken, even abandon ship, unless we the public make our voices heard and demand that:

The recommendations from the ECJ be accepted and implemented.

• 
  
  That inappropriate donors be banned from giving money
  
  
• 
  
  That limits be put on how much can be given and how much can be spent;
  
  
• 
  
  That behind-closed-doors giving and receiving be brought to an end and;
  
  
• 
  
  That, most of all, the law be passed and enforced well before the next election.

Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.