|
|
|
|
International Forum >> The Democracy Forum for East Asia>> "Political Finance and Democracy in East Asia: The Use and Abuse of Money in Campaigns and Elections"
|
|
|
Introduction
Session I: Political Finance in a Comparative Context Session II: Political Finance in the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and India Session III: Political Finance in Korea, Japan, and Taiwan Session IV: Regulating Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Session V: Disclosure, Transparency, and Institutional Enforcement Session VI: Making Political Finance More Democratic: Developing an Agenda for Reform Agenda Participants |
Session V: Disclosure, Transparency, and Institutional Enforcement Moderator: Michael Pinto-Duschinsky This session focused on how campaign finance activity was reported and disclosed, how government regulators and outside organizations monitored campaign spending, and how effectively violations of campaign finance laws were prosecuted and punished. "As we have already seen, problems of political finance cannot be solved by laws alone." So asserted Yong-Hwan Kim of Korea, who argued that a recent law intended to reduce corruption by limiting contributions and expenditures and by requiring more disclosure not only had not worked, but had probably made the problem worse. The law imposed many regulations that candidates violated, intentionally or inadvertently, but few candidates were ever investigated by the National Election Commission. But Won-Gu Yun, another participant from the NEC, said that the commission does investigate alleged violations and refers them to the public prosecutor. On further questioning about the NEC's staff size and workload, however, this participant admitted, "Lack of manpower is a serious problem." S.K. Mendiratta said that in India candidates who believe that their opponents have exceeded the spending limits can bring court cases against them. But despite the fact that "election limits are violated in almost all cases," according to Mr. Mendiratta, only one election in India had been declared void in the past ten years. But Taro Kono, a member of the Japanese parliament, cautioned against strict prosecutions of spending limit violations. He cited as an example of a senseless regulation a provision that limits the print run of his campaign brochure to 100,000 copies in an electoral district with 180,000 households. "If you obey the rules you will never ever be elected," Mr. Kono concluded. Larry Diamond asked if the problem was really one of adequate staff resources or a problem in the political culture that would not demand prosecutions of campaign finance violations. Andi Mallarangeng, a former member of the Indonesian National Election Commission, said that representatives of the political parties, all of which are represented on the NEC, simply agree not to investigate each other. And Smita Notosusanto said that if the Supreme Court really enforced the law, "the four largest political parties would be banned." She recommended restructuring the election commission to make it more distant from the government plus creating an independent election court. Jong Wan Kim said that the Korean NEC "has no teeth." Luie Tito F. Guia observed that while the Philippine election commission has vast power, "we still have no compliance. It is not lack of manpower." If that is the case, perhaps countries should empower high-profile special prosecutors to go after major violators of campaign finance laws, American lawyer and election expert Bob Dahl recommended. In many countries with weak institutional enforcement, civil society has responded by creating watchdog organizations that monitor campaigns and elections, uncover and publicize violations, and mobilize public opinion against candidates who grossly overstep the laws. Miklos Marschall, executive director of Transparency International, described how that global anticorruption organization developed measures that contribute to cleaner elections. But Michael Pinto-Duschinsky suspected that the effectiveness of election monitoring, for example, was probably limited to urban areas. How, he wondered, could one monitor vote buying in rural areas? Participants from Sri Lanka and Indonesia agreed that it was extremely difficult to monitor voting in rural areas, where there was extensive vote buying and fraudulent voter registration. And Laura Thornton, who works in Thailand, said that election monitors face harassment and even violence in rural areas. "We have many-perhaps too many-monitoring organizations in Indonesia," Smita Notosusanto added. Some of these groups were established by parties themselves, creating a problem not only of vote buying but of monitor buying. Chito Gascon believed that solving this problem required a cultural shift. "We need to convince voters that vote buying is wrong," he said, adding, "We need the media to expose and shame vote buyers." But Eduardo Posada Carbó from Colombia said that the only real solution to vote buying and other electoral fraud was the modernization of electoral procedures to make wholesale cheating too difficult to conceal. |
|
| |