Various reasons that suggest against the state funding of political campaigns. For one, political campaigns have become excessively costly. A less compelling, why should the taxpayer take the burden of funding campaign of those its ideologies do no jibe with? But voters do need to be aware of each one’s manifesto to be able to decide.
Corporate funding could, idealistically, could reduce the under-table black transactions. It could be Pro-Reforms, given that corporates would now have to earn funding, based on work done in past, policies and promises to deliver. However, corporate funding continues on an anonymous basis and a ‘quid pro quo’ basis. It lists towards support of more networked individuals, and are a natural bane to independent or new candidates.
Numerous examples right at home, right from Enron-Dabhol Power project, to the Reddy Brothers in Karnataka, the Maytas Infra group and the allotment of 2G Spectrum licences!
The various touted policy options include placement of spending limits. These of course would be unfair to the new candidates. In early 2010, it was promulgated by the US Supreme Court: “corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech’.
The more effective less easy solution seems to be increasing disclosures.
A thought crossed my mind, that some of the campaign expenses should be made evenly, equally free for all candidates. Possibility in terms of print material, airtime, fuel costs, and paid for by the respective corporations. Presumably this will lower the demand for additional funds. Of course, the brunt will be borne by the limited Media and Fuel industries.
The corporate funding to political parties, from a purely practical point of view, cannot be eliminated, not now when we are on our way to fiscal consolidation, and yet far from FRBM targets.
