In politics, it’s a fund fair

Political parties exist to contest elections. Members of political parties go on to win seats in legislative bodies and if successful in controlling the majority of lawmakers, effectively control a nation- directly dictating national policies and fiscal decisions. With such big stakes on the line, political funding is not something to be taken lightly.

Generally speaking, there are three sources of funds that political parties get their money from. The first would be by subscription fees by the members themselves. This raises the least conflict of interests as members would naturally be supportive of their own party.

The second would be through government grants. Though not really practiced in Malaysia, many modern democracies’ ruling governments actually fund their opposition counterparts. In the House of Commons, the Short Money Fund is used to defray opposition members of parliament's (MP) expenses and costs. The opposition leader, chief whip and deputy chief whip all get additional salaries, apart from their MP allowance – from the government. Election campaigning is subsidised based on the size of the electorate, and candidates are given free airtime to advertise their manifestos (Quite a far cry from what happens here)

 In countries such as Sweden, even election campaigning itself is funded by the government –  up to 90% of the income of the major political parties come from public subsidies funded ultimately by the taxpayer.

The third would be by donations either by individuals or organisations sympathetic to the party’s cause, or, in the case of lobbying, would like the party to be sympathetic to its cause. Labour related parties such as the Labour Party in the UK or its Australian counterpart, receives significant funds from trade unions.

Donations from the corporate sector are usually heavily regulated, with Australia capping the maximum donation allowed by corporations at A$250,000 (RM775,824) and individual donations permissible for tax claim purposes at A$1,500.

Almost all these countries have strict laws about accepting political funds from foreign countries.

These regulations are in place for good reason, too. There is no such thing as a free lunch in this world. Politicians aren’t destitute orphans and the political landscape isn’t one giant corporate social responsibility program. The individuals or companies funding politicians would definitely expect something in return. The higher the donation, the fewer the donors, the more beholden the political party would be to that said donor.

In the best scenarios it could be a simple request to officiate a building or launch a product. Perhaps a recommendation letter for the donor’s kid to enter a favourable university? Or perhaps a Cash- For-Questions-in-Parliament – like the Al-Fayed scandal in the UK in the 1990s?

But what if it were to move beyond what's "harmless"?

While the earlier examples would only give a token advantage that would really involve national interests, what if the donor got greedier and sought something juicier? A contract at an inflated price, perhaps? A development project that isn’t really needed? Or re-paving an urban road for the sixth time in a year instead of building a much needed bridge or a school in a deep rural area. Or privatising a stretch of previously public road and setting up three toll collection points between a commuter’s home and workplace.

Wouldn’t that lead to excess?  Criminal wastage of funds?

What about influencing national policy to the detriment of the general population? For example, the National Rifle Association and gun lobbyists in the US being able to get Congressmen and Senators to, till date, despite countless school attacks, gun related violence and shootouts – to defend gun rights? Why are there so many people eager to ban shisha and e-cigarette or vape machines in Malaysia when you can buy a pack of cigarettes or gambling cards easier than you can purchase a plaster?

Hence, the concerns of the average Malaysian over the much publicised RM2.6 billion political donation, is a valid one. As should that same average Malaysian be concerned over any political donation outside your RM 50 per head “ceramah” dinners.

While in Malaysia, under the Election Offences Act, campaign funds are capped by the Election Commission, actual enforcement of the cap is often lax, and beyond campaign periods, political funds aren’t really monitored.

Anything short of full disclosure of donations by any and all political parties accepting public donations and public votes, should invite justified suspicion. To avoid that, and to encourage a more transparent government, political funding should be regulated and enforced strictly.

The fear of corporations’ disclosure of their political donations is, of course a very valid one. They risk alienating a segment of their customer base. But if they are afraid of offending their customers, why bother with political donations at all? Give the money to a soup kitchen, or a cat shelter – everyone loves kittens! – August 18, 2015. 

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.