POLITICAL funding is a necessity that when not properly regulated can have undesirable consequences of, especially, influence buying.
Since sovereignty of a nation is that principle upon which the dignity of a country rests, donations originating offshore must be prohibited, as it could threaten the democratic process and values.
Towards this end a new law on political contributions, the Political Donation Act, has been proposed, with luck, to be in place by the 14th general election, due in a couple of years.
Accounting for monies spent for political activity and campaigns then become an important feature of the country’s electioneering landscape.
Currently, there is no need to account for monies received for political campaigns.
The law does not prohibit nor does it require any accountability for the monies political parties collect.
The outcome: competing fundraising drives that are kept hidden from public view for the simple reason that large amounts of money do not equal the milk of human kindness. Which in turn leads to “money politics”, a malicious spoiler of democratic free choice because the rationale becomes one of money chasing more money; the imperative to win at all costs becoming the informing motivation.
Corruption of the democratic ideals of rule by, of and for the people occurs in favour of special interests, namely big money.
America is a glaring example of how wrong things have gone when big money dominates politics: corporate interest replaces public welfare.
What then, makes political donation legitimate?
It all depends on the law, hence, the Political Donation Act must re-establish the objectives of the principle of one adult-one-vote:
to give voice to the
will of the people and no other.
Transparency should drive the proposed act to end influence peddling as a campaign financing agenda. No foreign governments, corporations and individuals may contribute to political funds.
Government-linked companies (GLCs), especially, should be barred from making political donations because GLCs are funded by the public coffers, hence, the funds cannot be spent on trying to influence election results.
The argument that they are paying for future government contracts is
absurd because government contracts automatically go toaGLC if it has the necessary expertise.
Additionally, the funding of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), too, must be made transparent.
As the colour revolution in the Ukraine shows, it was reported that Washington spent US$5 billion over several years to ensure regime change and the billions were poured in through NGOs.
The failed attempt in Hong Kong also demonstrated the various ways foreign governments attempted to install puppet regimes and undermine the welfare of local populations.
The Political Donation Act must arrange political party financing in such a way that even local contributions are capped. However, given that the political machinery is expensive to run, some government funding for administrative purposes is warranted.
Given the importance of political parties to the democratic process, contributions from the public should be encouraged; tax-free status should be given for donations not exceeding RM5,000, say.
Political funding is important if democracy is to thrive. The imperative then is to create a climate of transparency and establish donation limits.