News Feed

October 20, 2016 - UPDATE: Yearwood gets bail Kwame Everton Dashawn Yearwood, 17, ... +++ October 20, 2016 - Wanted man surrenders Police  now have in custody 42-yea ... +++ October 20, 2016 - Teen charged in connection with ‘sex tape’ Police have arrested and formally c ... +++ October 20, 2016 - Teen’s living arrangements worry magistrate Information from a 17-year-old male ... +++ October 20, 2016 - Young cricketers show their mettle Reveria Cottle struck a well-played ... +++ October 20, 2016 - Look to organic farming – UNDP official A senior official of the United Nat ... +++

No controlling political spending – Wickham

A leading political scientist today warned that there was no easy fix to the issue of campaign financing. In fact, Peter Wickham suggested it was virtually impossible to control it.

Speaking against the backdrop of numerous calls for regulation of the monies political parties spend on electioneering, Wickham also responded to the view that democracy was threatened when some candidates or one political party can outspend their competition.

“My sense is that it is a far more challenging problem to deal with because it deals with a practice which people may find distasteful, which is raising money for an election; but it’s absolutely necessary,” the CADRES director said on a Jamaican radio programme this morning.

“And I think that we need to take a realistic look that political parties have to raise money and the idea of having them declare their donors, having them declare every single cent that they raise is highly impractical.

“I think this is where I differ from most of the local analysts because there is a prevailing view in Jamaica that it is something that can be regulated. My sense is that it probably cannot be regulated as easily as people might think,” Wickham added.

In the wake of a recent campaign financing scandal that rocked the main opposition People’s National Party (PNP) in Jamaica, Wickham cautioned that the problem was more widespread in the Caribbean than people may realize.

“The PNP has had two unfortunate incidents recently – there was the Trafigura scandal a few years ago and now this. It appears as though they have been tarnished a bit more than the others, but the fact is that the other political parties do pretty much the same thing, not only in Jamaica but across the region,” he said.

And while noting that in the Barbados context “there is less hanky panky . . . largely because the economy is smaller and there is less money about”, he said “you find in Trinidad and Tobago the problem is worse”.

“There is more hanky panky because there is more money about, the contracts are larger and that’s pretty much how it goes,” he said.

Wickham cautioned the Jamaican authorities against spending scarce resources trying to regulate campaign financing.

“I am familiar with the legislation that’s being pushed in Jamaica now which is the OAS [Organisation of American States] model. My challenge with it is I honestly don’t think it will solve the problem. I think that what will happen is that politicians will raise money privately but they will just do it more discreetly, which is essentially what the Jamaica Labour Party has obviously been able to achieve in that they have done exactly the same thing but they’ve been more discreet in terms of the way that they raise funds,” Wickham said.

“Jamaica will suck the energy and blood out of their national economy and their national budget trying to set up an administrative structure to deal with this type of thing and to me it is unnecessary.

“What I do believe needs to happen, in the context of Jamaica especially, is that you have to look at what exactly are these contributions used for and you need to look to eliminate line items; so political party advertising, T-shirts and paraphernalia . . . these are the type of things I think are far more practical in terms of bringing up to the forefront,” he added.

6 Responses to No controlling political spending – Wickham

  1. Hal Austin September 7, 2016 at 5:29 am

    This is nonsense. There is an easy way. Outlaw corporate contributions and limit individual contributions to no more than Bds$3000 in cash or kind.
    Anything over that will become a criminal offence. Corporate contributions are in fact payable by taxpayers and ‘hidden’ individuals are a form of corruption.

    • Sunshine Sunny Shine September 7, 2016 at 2:05 pm

      Hal Austin your contributions always make for interesting reading but this one here is not cutting it. You could put all the legilsation in place, stiff penalties and limitations, but it will not stop the cane ground meeting, the secret deal in the cellar of the house, or trip to a neighbouring island to discuss the fine details about what you will get for your campaign contribution when my party get in power. Chris Sinckler is basically saying that the gravy train is simply an Express.

  2. seagul September 7, 2016 at 5:51 am

    Yes, promoting the idea that it cannot be regulated just exposes this agent as part of the problem. But having sold his homeland for a bag of dollars what else can be expected from him. Most political tools always see the pessimism at every instance. Politics is corruption, and corporates are the leaders.

  3. BaJan boy September 7, 2016 at 8:56 am

    Hal Austin you is a real real clown..You surely don’t understand what the man saying. Legislation does not stop a candidate from spending and they can still receive thousands of cash and do what ever they like. How will legislation affect that. You know everything ting and don’t seem to know much..

  4. Hal Austin September 7, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    Bajan Boy,
    Instead of being rude, just think about what I said. By restricting political donations and outlawing its extent, people will be aware that by breaking the law there will be punishment. There is no risk-free solution.
    A new law will not stop determined people from making illegal donations to individual candidates or to a party, they run the risk of a heavy fine of imprisonment. Even of being banned from being a candidate for a fixed period.
    If we do not control it now we run the risk of being like the US where big money call the shots, one reason why Hillary Clinton,up against Trump,is still unpopular. It is called trust.
    What deals do the candidates and parties make in order to get financial support from leading business people?

  5. seagul September 7, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    As a country there is not a genuine commitment to fight corruption in B’dos. We celebrate the corrupt–the speaker of the house…. and give pride of place to the corruption. We as a country has failed to fight corruption.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *