Ban KBL SKETCHES By Ana Marie Pamintuan (The Philippine Star) | Updated August 8, 2014 - 12:00am 2 14 googleplus0 1 With the election year approaching, politicians are scrambling to find a viable substitute for the billions in people’s money that they used to enjoy under the pork barrel system, augmented by the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP). Those billions under the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocated in lump sums to lawmakers, with the DAP as a bonus to cooperative individuals, bankrolled patronage politics in this country. Politicians earmarked people’s money to finance pet development projects, many of which favored their families and cronies. Substantial public funds were also set aside for contributions to their constituents’ “KBL” – kasal, binyag, libing – weddings, baptisms and funerals. The KBL is a two-way setup: people have come to expect their politicians to contribute food, flowers, cash, and even tents, tables and karaoke machines for such events, apart from helping them out in times of disasters. So what could happen if KBL contributions were banned by law? What if candidates are prohibited by law from paying for food at political campaign gatherings, or providing free transportation to truck in the audience? Laws can also be passed – and strictly enforced – limiting the amount of campaign materials that can be displayed, and the period during which these can be put up. If properly enforced, such laws can save candidates a substantial amount of campaign funds. Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1 With the scandals over the PDAF and DAP curtailing politicians’ use of people’s money for personal purposes, it is a good time to revisit legislative proposals on campaign finance. It can include a review of the multi-party system, which is really a no-party system, with politicians flitting from one group to another, usually depending on the results of elections. Restrained from feeding from the public trough, it is in the interest of politicians to improve the party system and campaign finance. * * * In South Korea, election laws ban candidates from KBL-type donations, distributing free food and providing free transportation at campaign rallies. Campaign materials can be put up only a few days before election day, and designated display areas are strictly followed. Political advertising in mass media is strictly regulated to give candidates an equal shot at name recall regardless of personal wealth. The Koreans have laws limiting campaign donations and requiring itemized accounting of contributors and amounts donated. We also have such laws; the difference is that the Koreans, while not perfect, are better at enforcement. Korea, of course, has a different society, where lavish partying, like the ones we used to see pre-PDAF and DAP scandals, can doom political careers. South Korea also has a two-party system with distinct stands on various issues. Contributions are coursed through the parties, which also receive state subsidy for campaign expenses. * * * Because of the laughable political party system in this country, any proposal to make taxpayers subsidize party activities is certain to be shot down. But through our flawed budget system, taxpayers are in fact subsidizing partisan political activities, with the epals and their parties shamelessly claiming credit for projects paid for by Juan and Juana de la Cruz. Lawmakers are currently devising ways of holding on to these funding perks, short of impeaching all the members of the Supreme Court. Because the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, lawmakers will still have a say in identifying projects for funding in the annual national appropriation, and they will still continue finding ways of claiming credit for those projects. But the SC rulings on the PDAF and DAP have severely curtailed politicians’ discretion in the use of public funds. Lawmakers may now be more open to proposals on campaign finance, which among other things can drastically cut their election expenditures. Pinoys may find the idea of subsidizing political parties abhorrent. But if we can develop a strong, credible two-party system, people may be willing to at least give the proposal a second look. Combined with effective campaign finance legislation, with mechanisms for transparency and public accountability built into the rules, there could be a sea change in Philippine politics. Many corrupt deals start during campaigns, when donors who like staying in the shadows bankroll expensive campaigns. Such donors also want to stay in the shadows when they cash in their chips if their bet wins. Cashing in typically takes the form of sweetheart deals that skirt procurement laws. The return on investment can also be the appointment of the generous campaign donor or his relatives and friends to desired positions in government, even if the appointees do not meet qualifications. Such political rewards are common throughout the executive and judicial branches, including the military and police, wreaking havoc on the rule of law and any effort to develop a merit-based society. The most generous campaign donors can dictate national policy throughout an entire administration. Taxpayers have a stake in seeing these donors clearly identified and the amounts of their contributions declared accurately. Lawmakers, for obvious self-serving reasons, have resisted proposals leading in this direction. But campaign expenditures have reached unreasonable proportions, fueled by politicians’ own unrestrained spending in the past and the expectations they have generated among certain types of voters. Several former presidential candidates estimated in 2010 that running for president could cost a staggering P2 billion. As I have written, certain candidates for the Senate in the same year told me they spent from P130-P150 million. Running for a seat in the House of Representatives is of course less expensive. But a strategist for a candidate for a House seat with virtually no opposition in a key city district told me they still spent P6 million in 2010. Campaigns have stalled as politicians and their parties run out of funds. Inflation and the ever-growing voter population guarantee that every campaign will be more expensive than the previous one. Instead of devising new collars for the PDAF and DAP, it is in politicians’ enlightened self-interest to consider overhauling campaign finance and, if possible, the political party system.
Posted on: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 05:52:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015