Money politics

The mouthpiece had to nuance the statement of his principal: President Duterte was not referring to public funds when he promised to give “one sack of money” to each candidate of his PDP-Laban faction.

Duterte made the promise during a PDP-Laban gathering in Iligan City last Saturday: “I will also give you one sack of money to make sure that you will win… whatever we have, we will give it to you.”

It echoed his promise to his party mates last July 17, to campaign for them and bring money by the sackful if possible: “City to city, province to province, kakampanya ako. At saka magdadala ako ng maraming pera… sako, kung mayroon.”

The Omnibus Election Code prohibits the “use of public funds, money deposited in trust, equipment, facilities owned or controlled by the government for an election campaign.”

Also prohibited under the Election Code are the use of government resources for “any partisan political activity” as well as vote buying, which occurs when a person “gives, offers, or promises money... in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate...”

In our country, unfortunately, government officials have become experts at blurring the line between public and private funds.

*      *      *

Over the years I have talked to key campaign operators of various candidates (and even some of the bets themselves), so I can believe that cash is distributed literally by the sackful during elections.

But solid proof is hard to unearth. No one likes any money transaction that leaves a trail, so digital fund transfers are out even in this age. For manual cash distribution, no receipts are issued and not even thumbprints are given by recipients, so the money trail can be tough to follow.

The money is given to local political leaders, who in turn distribute the cash to voters, usually on the eve of elections or even on election day itself.

Barangay captains, who are supposed to be non-partisan, often serve as political leaders and bagmen of candidates.

There’s a standing joke that some people enter election races “for the fund of it.” The major campaign donors in this country, however, invest only in candidates with a good chance of winning – and those who are in the race simply “for the fund of it” are almost never winners. Also, a myopic, greedy candidate who doesn’t grasp the importance of strategic sharing of blessings is bound to lose.

The savvier candidate disburses all campaign funds for their intended purposes… and recoups the investment once elected.

Some luckless candidates are not greedy, but their underlings are. Philippine elections are replete with stories of candidates whose handlers pocketed substantial amounts of campaign funds.

One prominent candidate, a newbie in politics, was said to have lost P20 million of his truly hard-earned money to one such con artist. The swindle was said to have added to the poor bet’s heartache upon defeat, which drove him to a prolonged drinking binge that contributed to his death.

At least it was his own money. What poses a problem is when incumbent officials use public funds and resources for partisan purposes, to influence votes.

In the 2019 midterm elections, there was widespread talk that sackloads of cash were released to local government executives to catapult a political newbie to the Senate.

The money politics worked for the newbie. Those behind it are sure to try the same thing in the 2022 race. Fortunately, elections in recent years have shown that sackloads of cash don’t guarantee victory in the races for the nation’s two highest posts.

*      *      *

A problem in our dysfunctional democracy is that there are people who actually expect candidates to buy votes. In the time of COVID, the expectation can even become an urgent need if the economic cataclysm spawned by the pandemic persists until election day.

Whether recipients of ayuda from politicians will actually vote for the candidate, however, is another story.

During the campaign for the 1986 snap presidential election, the late Manila archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin famously advised the faithful to accept money offered by the Marcos dictatorship, but to vote according to their conscience.

In the days of manual election, vote buyers could actually check if they got what they paid for. The verification – an incentive for vote buying – is supposed to be impossible in automated voting. But with mobile phones, vote sellers can take a photo of their filled out ballot. So the ban on the use of cell phones in the voting area should be strictly enforced. Violators should face penalties, possibly including invalidation of their vote.

Digital technology is leveling the election playing field somewhat. Candidates can now tap social media for their campaigns. The camp of Vice President Leni Robredo has said they are relying heavily on volunteers, social media and fund crowdsourcing to carry out a non-traditional campaign. They won’t rely on the machinery of the party that she chairs, but which she isn’t running under, the Liberal Party.

Still, well-funded candidates continue to enjoy an advantage. They can buy more airtime on TV and radio, place more ads online and in print, and display more streamers for early name recall. In this age of black propaganda on social media, they can also afford more extensive and sophisticated troll farms.

This anything-goes policy has made our election campaigns incredibly expensive. Politicians themselves should want tight regulation of partisan activities and election spending. Yet lawmakers have consistently resisted every proposal to regulate campaign finance.

Election fund-raising lays the groundwork for future sweetheart deals, undeserved appointments and promotions in government, corruption and shameless influence-peddling, and immunity from criminal indictment for campaign donors even for serious offenses such as drug trafficking.

Considering the state of our electoral system and poisoned political environment, we can only dream of a national leadership that won’t simply go with the flow, readying sacks of cash when election season comes around.