The problem is if we ban electoral bonds or amend the system, it becomes no longer convenient for corporates to fund political parties. Suppose there is a corporate X and there are two probable winners Party A and Part B . X will like to fund both A and B, to be on the winning side, no matter what is outcome of elections. Also he will not like A to know how much he has donated to B and vice versa. If the present bond system is banned we go back to the black money funding where no records are kept. Or parties resort to breaking such donations in multiple pieces of fictitious receipts of amounts below Rs20000. As of now, funds received through bonds are not significant at all. The actual amount spent is far more than. This indicates that unofficial routes are still followed for political funding. As such, this discussion or debate is for academic purpose only. Even if bond system gets banned or amended, the role of black money in political funding remains unimpacted.
To me the give away is the AG’s argument that we, the citizens, have not right to know who and how the politicians fund themselves. Juxtapose this with his argument during the Aadhar case that citizen have no right to privacy. I don’t know how an educated, experienced and responsible public officer (paid by your and my money) can make such statements, albeit at two different points in time. One was about personal information about the individuals and other is about the politicians funding themselves. I don’t right over information about myself, but I can not know who is funded the politician who determines my fate in more than way. We all know that the politicians have exploited the system all these years. Defining a bill as money bill and issuing ordinances on issues that are economic (not social). A politician has no business to pass any economic law without thorough debate, when we know crony capitalism is rampant. We have lobbyists joining government policy formulation offices, big businesses pleasing their God (read Modi) in public by singing all forms of praises. Likes of India Foundation flaunting the pictures of ministers and the ruling party officer bearers on their site and getting funded by the government. How does one trust such arrangement when political funding is not known or is only known to a few who have access to the sealed covers?
Apart from several other infirmities on which this scheme needs to be struck down, it violates the foundational principle of equality, or equity. Why should over 90% of contributions flow to the ruling party in the Centre. What distinguishes it from other parties – equally in need of funding – is that it has the power to confer official favours. Quid pro quo is apparent. 2. If the idea is to move from cash to cheque – intuition suggests we are not even 5% there – corporates and others could make their payments through normal banking channels, reflect this transaction in the audited accounts. Shareholders have a right to know why money to which they are entitled is being donated for political purposes. Even more significant for the public’s right to be well informed, the political parties should display on their websites complete details of the identity of their benefactors. 3. Since the hearing has been delayed by a year, one sees the apex court’s concern not to be too disruptive in the midst of the general election. However, when the matter is finally disposed of the Vourt may be pleased to thoughtfully consider the reservations so many concerned citizens are raising. 4. If one is not mistaken, this scheme is one of the provisions Speaker Sumitra Mahajan magnanimously waved through as part of a Money Bill.
The problem is if we ban electoral bonds or amend the system, it becomes no longer convenient for corporates to fund political parties. Suppose there is a corporate X and there are two probable winners Party A and Part B . X will like to fund both A and B, to be on the winning side, no matter what is outcome of elections. Also he will not like A to know how much he has donated to B and vice versa. If the present bond system is banned we go back to the black money funding where no records are kept. Or parties resort to breaking such donations in multiple pieces of fictitious receipts of amounts below Rs20000. As of now, funds received through bonds are not significant at all. The actual amount spent is far more than. This indicates that unofficial routes are still followed for political funding. As such, this discussion or debate is for academic purpose only. Even if bond system gets banned or amended, the role of black money in political funding remains unimpacted.
To me the give away is the AG’s argument that we, the citizens, have not right to know who and how the politicians fund themselves. Juxtapose this with his argument during the Aadhar case that citizen have no right to privacy. I don’t know how an educated, experienced and responsible public officer (paid by your and my money) can make such statements, albeit at two different points in time. One was about personal information about the individuals and other is about the politicians funding themselves. I don’t right over information about myself, but I can not know who is funded the politician who determines my fate in more than way. We all know that the politicians have exploited the system all these years. Defining a bill as money bill and issuing ordinances on issues that are economic (not social). A politician has no business to pass any economic law without thorough debate, when we know crony capitalism is rampant. We have lobbyists joining government policy formulation offices, big businesses pleasing their God (read Modi) in public by singing all forms of praises. Likes of India Foundation flaunting the pictures of ministers and the ruling party officer bearers on their site and getting funded by the government. How does one trust such arrangement when political funding is not known or is only known to a few who have access to the sealed covers?
Apart from several other infirmities on which this scheme needs to be struck down, it violates the foundational principle of equality, or equity. Why should over 90% of contributions flow to the ruling party in the Centre. What distinguishes it from other parties – equally in need of funding – is that it has the power to confer official favours. Quid pro quo is apparent. 2. If the idea is to move from cash to cheque – intuition suggests we are not even 5% there – corporates and others could make their payments through normal banking channels, reflect this transaction in the audited accounts. Shareholders have a right to know why money to which they are entitled is being donated for political purposes. Even more significant for the public’s right to be well informed, the political parties should display on their websites complete details of the identity of their benefactors. 3. Since the hearing has been delayed by a year, one sees the apex court’s concern not to be too disruptive in the midst of the general election. However, when the matter is finally disposed of the Vourt may be pleased to thoughtfully consider the reservations so many concerned citizens are raising. 4. If one is not mistaken, this scheme is one of the provisions Speaker Sumitra Mahajan magnanimously waved through as part of a Money Bill.
… Court …