Chief Electoral Officer Satyabrata Sahoo said no reports of booth capturing or any other untoward incident regarding law and order has been received so far.
Since the infamous Lucknow guesthouse incident, BSP's Mayawati and SP's Mulayam have been sworn enemies. But Friday's rally in Mainpuri could well make that history.
Nostalgia, romance, and a love of heritage alone cannot make the beloved trams of Kolkata sustainable. Simple science can. Transport Minister, are you with us still?
Under this model, battery is provided to EV owners on a subscription basis or lease. With more people open to buying EV cars, the lower upfront cost could likely drive wider acceptance.
The artillery regiment has incorporated simulators in a big way for various functions like driving & weapons training, especially for Agniveers to get realistic training.
Sri Lankan transition was smoothly managed. Check Bangladesh for contrast. They forced their incumbent into exile, installed a mostly unelectable govt of non-political people.
1) Anonymity of donor’s identity: “voters have a right to know” who is donating [to which political party]
Counter claim : Donors right to privacy > voters right to information.
Donors would face harassment if their identities are revealed, or choose cash donations to remain anonymous.
It does not address the Supreme Court’s own precedent on how the voter’s right to information is integral to free and fair elections. Identities of donors is part of that information.
Neither does it address the dangers of legalizing corporations using anonymous donations to lobby for certain policies for self profit.
2) The government of the day knows the donor’s details because the SBI is a “sovereign surrogate”
Counter claim : They don’t, details will only be revealed in case of criminal cases. Anonymity will lead to fairer contestability, help newer parties get donations more fairly.
Ignores the reality of how ruling govts often override the autonomy of supposedly independent orgs like SBI, CBI, EC, CVC etc for their own favor. In light of this, electoral bonds provide ruling govts access to information that they can use to target opposition parties and donators.
3) Electoral bonds are instruments for laundering money
Counter claim : Donations happen under RBI’s KYC norms, with donors providing id. Amendment made to limit cash donation to Rs 2000 will prevent money laundering.
Corporations using tax havens and shell companies to legalize and utilize their black money is a standard practice. The same can easily be done for political donations, also giving them tax exemptions in addition.
Limiting cash donations (which is anonymous in the first place) though positive, is easily evadable. The limitless anonymity of bonds would turn lobbying through cash into an antiquity in any case.
4) Electoral bonds ease quid pro quo dealing between parties and donors
Counter claim : Conceding that the scheme does not really mitigate the risk of quid pro quo dealings. Reiterating counter claims from point 1.
This point is the core of the criticism of Electoral Bonds, and the authors admit to its legitimacy. Donors and parties can easily communicate in private, share and confirm bond number and amount, and scratch each others backs.
Overall, the counter arguments are in support of anonymity (not transparency), use singular examples where it might help, and concede the most important point of the criticism. While not addressing the details of specific amendments in Finance Bill 2017 which most of the criticism is based on. Or taking in account the difference between the scheme on paper vs in practice.
Just like maybe GST, Electoral Bonds as an idea is not inherently bad. The point of creating new schemes and policies is to remedy issues. But if you come up with a new scheme like Electoral Bonds under the promise that it’ll tackle crony capitalism, and bring about more transparency, and then have amendments which instead facilitate those issues more effectively, what you’re doing is just switching and encouraging the mode of corruption from cash to bonds.
——————————————————————————————————————
Coming to the criticism of the Electoral Bonds, it’s important to note that major concerns came from the EC, after controversial amendments were made in the Finance Act 2017.
*Amendment of Sec 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951*
The government amended the act to the effect that now political donations made through electoral bonds need not be declared to the Election Commission.
The EC also pointed out that the amendment of 29C will possibly lead to violation of Section 29B of the Act, which “prohibits the political parties from taking donations from Government Companies and Foreign sources”.
*Amendment of Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013*
The amendment removed the limit of 7.5 percent of net profit in the preceding three financial years for companies to donate to political parties. Now companies are free to donate any amount to parties.
The Bill also exempted electoral bonds from *Section 13T of the Income Tax Act* , according to which parties need to maintain and make public records of names, addresses of all donors who contribute more than Rs 20,000.
Additionally, the requirement that a corporation ought to have been in existence for at least three years before it could make donations — a system that was meant to stop shell concerns from being created with a view purely to syphoning money into politics — has also been removed.
In addition, the bonds now have have hidden, unique alphanumeric code, which enables the ruling govt to track donors if they so wish.
As a consequence of all these amendments, corporations no longer need to use cash to hide their donations, as bonds provide them the similar insulation. In addition, the amendments encourage creation of shell companies, while also ensuring that the ruling party has access to donor details, while taking away from the EC their power to monitor party donations.
As of now the Electoral Bonds seem to be overwhelmingly favoring the ruling party. How much of it is because of their actual popularity, and how much of it is because of the possibility that the scheme by design does so, is something that needs to be studied.
Like the political parties in the USA the congress and the BjP must have five lakhs dinner parties openly and publish the names of the particilpants.
Even in a small city like Jodhpur I know how even small scale industrialists used to pay ransom to the Congress and to the BjP and by all means to the communists who could disrupt their production.POLITICIANS CANNOT FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
1) Anonymity of donor’s identity: “voters have a right to know” who is donating [to which political party]
Counter claim : Donors right to privacy > voters right to information.
Donors would face harassment if their identities are revealed, or choose cash donations to remain anonymous.
It does not address the Supreme Court’s own precedent on how the voter’s right to information is integral to free and fair elections. Identities of donors is part of that information.
Neither does it address the dangers of legalizing corporations using anonymous donations to lobby for certain policies for self profit.
2) The government of the day knows the donor’s details because the SBI is a “sovereign surrogate”
Counter claim : They don’t, details will only be revealed in case of criminal cases. Anonymity will lead to fairer contestability, help newer parties get donations more fairly.
Ignores the reality of how ruling govts often override the autonomy of supposedly independent orgs like SBI, CBI, EC, CVC etc for their own favor. In light of this, electoral bonds provide ruling govts access to information that they can use to target opposition parties and donators.
3) Electoral bonds are instruments for laundering money
Counter claim : Donations happen under RBI’s KYC norms, with donors providing id. Amendment made to limit cash donation to Rs 2000 will prevent money laundering.
Corporations using tax havens and shell companies to legalize and utilize their black money is a standard practice. The same can easily be done for political donations, also giving them tax exemptions in addition.
Limiting cash donations (which is anonymous in the first place) though positive, is easily evadable. The limitless anonymity of bonds would turn lobbying through cash into an antiquity in any case.
4) Electoral bonds ease quid pro quo dealing between parties and donors
Counter claim : Conceding that the scheme does not really mitigate the risk of quid pro quo dealings. Reiterating counter claims from point 1.
This point is the core of the criticism of Electoral Bonds, and the authors admit to its legitimacy. Donors and parties can easily communicate in private, share and confirm bond number and amount, and scratch each others backs.
Overall, the counter arguments are in support of anonymity (not transparency), use singular examples where it might help, and concede the most important point of the criticism. While not addressing the details of specific amendments in Finance Bill 2017 which most of the criticism is based on. Or taking in account the difference between the scheme on paper vs in practice.
Just like maybe GST, Electoral Bonds as an idea is not inherently bad. The point of creating new schemes and policies is to remedy issues. But if you come up with a new scheme like Electoral Bonds under the promise that it’ll tackle crony capitalism, and bring about more transparency, and then have amendments which instead facilitate those issues more effectively, what you’re doing is just switching and encouraging the mode of corruption from cash to bonds.
——————————————————————————————————————
Coming to the criticism of the Electoral Bonds, it’s important to note that major concerns came from the EC, after controversial amendments were made in the Finance Act 2017.
*Amendment of Sec 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951*
The government amended the act to the effect that now political donations made through electoral bonds need not be declared to the Election Commission.
The EC also pointed out that the amendment of 29C will possibly lead to violation of Section 29B of the Act, which “prohibits the political parties from taking donations from Government Companies and Foreign sources”.
*Amendment of Section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013*
The amendment removed the limit of 7.5 percent of net profit in the preceding three financial years for companies to donate to political parties. Now companies are free to donate any amount to parties.
The Bill also exempted electoral bonds from *Section 13T of the Income Tax Act* , according to which parties need to maintain and make public records of names, addresses of all donors who contribute more than Rs 20,000.
Additionally, the requirement that a corporation ought to have been in existence for at least three years before it could make donations — a system that was meant to stop shell concerns from being created with a view purely to syphoning money into politics — has also been removed.
In addition, the bonds now have have hidden, unique alphanumeric code, which enables the ruling govt to track donors if they so wish.
As a consequence of all these amendments, corporations no longer need to use cash to hide their donations, as bonds provide them the similar insulation. In addition, the amendments encourage creation of shell companies, while also ensuring that the ruling party has access to donor details, while taking away from the EC their power to monitor party donations.
As of now the Electoral Bonds seem to be overwhelmingly favoring the ruling party. How much of it is because of their actual popularity, and how much of it is because of the possibility that the scheme by design does so, is something that needs to be studied.
Like the political parties in the USA the congress and the BjP must have five lakhs dinner parties openly and publish the names of the particilpants.
Even in a small city like Jodhpur I know how even small scale industrialists used to pay ransom to the Congress and to the BjP and by all means to the communists who could disrupt their production.POLITICIANS CANNOT FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.
Very informative the nitty gritty of electoral bond for aam aadmi to understand……