Latest update March 29th, 2024 12:59 AM
Sep 23, 2011 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has set itself a most unrealistic target of US$6M for its election coffers. If APNU raises this sum, it is going to be the highest campaign financing ever attained in Guyana, and is going to be a record that will not likely be surpassed.
Just how they hope to raise this amount is not clear. That sum seems beyond APNU, unless of course they plan to pawn Guyana out, which is not something that the Guyanese people are ever going to accept.
So it does seems as if APNU does not have an idea of how to set a realistic financial target for its campaign financing. If APNU cannot do this, then how can it hope to be entrusted with the financial management of an economy which has grown far larger and more complex than when the PNC administered the economy?
It is well known that elections in Guyana can leave losing parties broke, but any party that raises 1.2 billion dollars need not ever again wonder about the future of its finances.
What is most amazing about this proposed campaign financing is that APNU is not likely to win more than 120,000 votes. And in order to secure this number of votes, it proposes to spend 1.2 billion dollars or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per vote. Why would APNU have to spend $10,000 per voter? This must be the highest per capita campaign spending in the whole world.
Where is APNU going to raise 1.2 billion dollars? Not in Guyana? Not in the Diaspora. No political party can raise US$1M much less six million.
The bulk of campaign financing is going to be raised in Guyana, and for every local dollar that APNU raises, the PPP will raise five dollars. This is how it has always worked. Most businessmen will give to all political parties. Some will give more to APNU and less to the PPP. Others will give more to the PPP and far less to APNU.
The PPP has the business interests of Guyana in its corner, and it will therefore raise far more money than the other parties. But the PPP is not desirous of raising anywhere near six million US dollars for its campaign.
It does not need to set such unrealistic targets. It is not ever going to spend anywhere near G$10,000 per vote. Any party that has to spend G$10,000 per vote is really not very efficient in getting its message across.
There has, of course, been concern about campaign financing and the lack of regulations. The problem is, however, not the amount that parties should raise. Given that APNU is proposing to raise six million United States dollars, it may not be disposed towards campaign financing limits. Who knows, by the next election it may be proposing to raise 1 billion United States dollars for its campaign?
Most political parties may have problems with campaign financing limits. After all, if elections are supposed to be a competitive process, then all parties should be free to raise as much funds as it can. Why should a party be disadvantaged simply because it can raise more funds than the other parties?
However, there are problems associated with excessive campaign financing. A race to raise a great deal of funds creates vulnerabilities and susceptibilities. At the same time, a great deal of campaign funds has diminishing returns, which means that less votes are obtained for every additional dollar spent beyond a certain threshold. In addition, where there is a great disparity between what one can spend in relation to another creates problems for minor parties without the requisite resources. Elections should be about issues and policies, and not give an inordinate advantage to those who can outspend their rivals.
As such there should be limits to how much funds can be spent per voter. If the total number of voters in a country is 400,000 then no party should be allowed to spend more than four hundred million Guyana dollars or two million United States bucks.
A more serious issue of campaign financing concerns accountability for funds received. Many parties are reluctant to disclose the total funds that they have spent, and even if legislation is passed insisting on full accountability, it will be difficult to establish an impartial mechanism to monitor the actual spending of parties or to audit their campaign financing. The parties themselves are likely to be resistant towards declaring how much funds they have received and to open their books for scrutiny.
The most serious concern, of course, is the source of campaign financing, and perhaps all the political parties in Guyana can begin to set a good example by pledging to ensure that to the best of their ability, they will avoid accepting any funds from suspected criminal sources.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 29, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – After a series of outstanding performances in 2023, Tianna Springer, dubbed the ‘wonder girl’, is eagerly gearing up to compete in this year’s...Kaieteur News – Good Friday in Guyana is not what it used to be. The day has lost much of its solemnity. The one day... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]