politics

Election spending criticized

david mesa/la prensa

campaign cash: Critics say that Panama’s election laws that earmark public money for politicians does not do enough to control spending or assist independent candidates.1100103

At the end of the 2014 national election, the government will have doled out a total of $69 million to the country's political parties and independent candidates since 1999.

This funding, which is mandated by law and overseen by the Electoral Tribunal, has been called “wasteful and useless” by several civic organizations, because it does little to cap campaign spending.

Furthermore, independent candidates see very little of this amount, as 99 percent of the funding goes to parties.

Candidates are reimbursed for expenses based on their vote totals. The more votes a candidate gets, the more he or she is reimbursed for expenses. The tribunal also doles out money to candidates based on how many signatures they get in their petition to run for office.

If a candidate or party fails to get 4 percent of the votes cast for a national office, they do not qualify for any public funds, something that has prompted several political parties to fold following poor showings in elections.

In 2004, independent candidates received about $87,000 in government campaign money, a fraction of what the political parties received.

The inequity in the system has led for calls to abandon the government payments. While the intent of the law was to level the playing field for independent candidates, critics argue that most of the money is earmarked for established parties.

Furthermore, the measure does nothing to limit campaign spending, since private donations are not regulated.

Maribel Jaén, of the Commission for Justice and Peace, stressed that there should be no public campaign financing if private donations are allowed.

“With the health and education crisis' that are being experienced in the country, it is shameful to have high subsidies for political parties, when we know that the majority of these subsidies are being spent on advertising, and not on the strengthening of political parties,” Jaén said.

Jaén also said that citizens will begin to insist on more transparency when it comes to political donations.

Meanwhile, the director of the Civic Alliance for Justice, Magaly Castillo, said the state subsidy is justified only if there are controls on private financing.

Castillo served on two committees that were established to discuss electoral reforms, and said that this issue was brought up each time.

“We are always opposed to the electoral allowance because, in Panama, there is a lot of private financing, so it does not justify this support,” Castillo said.

Castillo said that in countries where there is a state subsidy to political parties, the purpose is “to avoid donors from exerting influence on politicians, but this is not happening here.”

For his part, Electoral Tribunal Judge Eduardo Valdés said that progress has been made on establishing a ceiling for campaign spending. Election officials are also looking at setting limits on how much a person can donate to a candidate, as well as measures that would shorten the length of the campaign.

Valdés said these reforms should be ready for the 2014 election.