The Transparency and Accountability Network (TAN) is urging the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to strictly enforce campaign finance laws by creating an office or unit within the Comelec whose sole job would be to strictly monitor the campaign spending being done by candidates and to make sure they are following restrictions on campaign materials.
This is a very good idea, indeed, as the Comelec has been quite lax in enforcing the spending cap on campaign spending, based on the previous elections we’ve seen.
TAN is a network of nongovern-ment organizations that monitored campaign spending in the 2007 election. These people know what they are talking about.
How much are politicians spending to hold on to their jobs or to win elective posts? We need full financial disclosure reports to know, and the Comelec cannot expect candidates to be forthright and honest with their spending. The Comelec itself needs to have an office that can crack the whip on erring candidates.
Under the Synchronized Election Law, all candidates may spend only P3 for every registered voter for candidates with a political party, and P5 per registered voter for candidates without a political party. A political party may spend only P5 per voter.
If we have about 50 million registered voters, as per the Comelec’s last count that means the limit is P150 million for an individual candidate supported by political party and the party itself can only spend P250 million.
Just looking at how many primetime TV ads come out during the commercial breaks gives us an idea of how much is being overspent. By any measure, the figures would be staggering, even for a multi-billionaire candidate like Manny Villar or any other rich candidate.
The ads say are said to have been paid for by friends. But who are these friends? Where did they get the money? More importantly, what would they expect in return for spending billions on their candidate?
One should also note the plight of financially lesser but qualified candidates, those who scramble to raise money from donors, while their wealthier counterparts spend without regard for campaign finance limits. They are at an obvious disadvantage from the get-go.
What kind of democracy, and what kind of government, would result out of such a distorted campaign process? What kind of president could you hope to have, for example, if his winning factor is that he was able to saturate TV channels with his commercials, so much so that even street children can mindlessly sing his jingles?
Unfortunately, we expect more of such spending, not less in the near future. We expect a more vigorous spending spree by some candidates as they see their poll numbers go down, or as their respective electoral races get tighter.
For those candidates who are having a hard time raising money, their opponents can only say, well . . . sorry na lang kayo, as they go about their eye-popping spending.
That’s why voters need to delve deeply into the candidates’ records, in public service and outside of it. Rich candidates can accelerate spending all they want if the Comelec lets them, but those billions can’t rewrite their records in public service. Were they efficient public servants? Are their records tainted by corruption? Were they sleeping on the job? These cannot escape a watchful public.
But going back to the point, the Comelec would do well to create a separate office that can once and for all make candidates toe the line of legal campaigning, just as TAN suggested.
TAN said their past monitoring activities showed overspending by candidates, underreporting of campaign expenses and excessive political advertisements in terms of size and frequency. In many instances there was also vote-buying and using of government resources in the campaign.
TAN also said the Comelec wasn’t able to enforce campaign finance regulations in 2007.
If the Comelec really wants a free and fair election, they should implement TAN’s proposal, start enforcing the election rules, and disqualify the candidates who are violating these rules.
If the Comelec can do this, it can certainly eliminate the impression that public office could be bought by candidates who have more than enough money to out-spend their political opponents. –ERNESTO F. HERRERA, Manila Times
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
