WHO PAYS FOR OUR CAMPAIGNS?
Jose S. Azcona Bocock

When an automobile, beverage, or food company sells its product to us in advertisements, we know who pays for it and what physical results they expect. The advertiser knows that to sell his product it must be good, but he must also advertise it. Success in our political system also depends on two main factors: popular sympathy and money. Both factors are influential, on a different scale depending on the circumstances, but their impact on the process and the way it manifests itself is fundamentally different. It is essential in a democracy that the manifestation of both factors is clean, transparent, and orderly.

In the manifestation of popular sympathy, we have come a long way. We have eliminated coercion and repression as valid electoral tools. The voting of the different positions of popular election have been separated and the spaces for participation are being opened. Yet the power of money remains as secretive, arbitrary, and dangerous as ever. There is no mechanism that allows ordering, or at least knowing, who pays for our political campaigns. If we fail to correct this, not only will our democracy continue to be a dream, but dark and unknown interests will continue to manipulate our political process.

The objection to this mechanism is as obvious as it is superficial: Why should I account for the money someone has given me to a third party, especially if the offeror prefers that the donation be confidential? In any private activity, each money transaction is reported to the State. In this case, private interests are not at stake. Since the interests of all Hondurans are at stake when a penny comes in to try to convince voters, it is necessary and fair for these citizens to know who is helping to convince them. It is therefore imperative that the necessary mechanisms be legislated and established to know, supervise, and disclose the sources of income of the different candidates and parties.

As a top priority, we need to know who is providing the money. Candidates and parties have a duty to inform their supporters and the general population of who supports them financially. Furthermore, citizens must hold those who aspire to direct them to account for how they are funded. It is enough that the name and amounts of contributions be public so that the prudence of the candidates, the scrutiny of the media, and the natural wisdom of the citizens reduce the sale of influence considerably.

Supervision of funding sources is very important, although it does not necessarily have to be very restrictive. It would suffice to prohibit contributions from the government, foreign, or convicted criminals. It would not be correct (or political) to impose additional restrictions while electoral financial reform begins. It is not intended to restrict the participation of citizens or companies in politics in defense of their interests using their own resources as long as they do so in the eyes of the voters.

Disclosure of this information is a very important point. If this is confined to the archives of government offices, it can hardly be said that the function of informing the people has been fulfilled. There needs to be a mechanism to make contributor lists public or accessible, even to opponents, since the best protection against irregular contributions is that knowledge of these is exploited by opponents.

There may be many mechanisms to try to circumvent this system, but by requiring an accounting system similar to the one that governs private companies, with an audit of expenses and settlement of funds at the end of the race, it is possible to have a more open political system; a system in which the citizen is not considered as a puppet of interests that are beyond his knowledge and understanding, but where the legitimate and responsible interests of the economic power coexist with an informed and capable electorate. Then we will be one step closer to being a Democracy.

(2000, LT)
['Jose S Azcona']
['Campaign', 'Jose Azcona', 'Honduras', 'Articles', 'Funding']