Money and elections

Media

Part of Panorama

Title: Money and elections
Language: English
Source: Panorama XIX (5) May 1967
Year: 1967
Rights
Fulltext: ■ This article is intended to show the significance of the decision of the Senate Electoral Tribunal ousting 3 Filipino Senators for spending more than what the law permits in their election campaigns in 1961. MONEY AND ELECTIONS The decision of the Senate Electoral Tribunal on May 22, 1967, ordering the ouster of three Senators — Mr. Antonino, Mr. Manglapus, and Mrs. Kalaw-Katigbak — from their seats in the Senate for spending in their election campaign sums of money much in excess of what the law permits, has aroused ad verse comments in the Manila press. The legal limit is the yearly salary of a Senator fixed by the Constitution at P7.200, which may, however, be increased by Congress but in that eVent the new salary will not take effect “until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and House of R e p r e sentatives approving such increase.” These three Senators were charged in a complaint presented in the Senate Electoral Tribunal by a candidate for a Senate seat who received less than two thousand votes in the elec tions of 1961, a number re presenting but an insignifi cant fraction of the votes cast for any one of the victorious candidates. Under the constitutional provisions the Electoral Tri bunal of the Senate is com posed of nine members, three, of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court, three Sen ators from the majority party in the Senate, and three Sen ators from the party having the second largest number of votes in the Senate. The Constitution makes this body the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, re turns, and qualifications of the Senators. It is thus evi dent that the Electoral Tri bunal, having exclusive au thority over cases on these questions, has the final and unappealable authority in these matters. The decision of the Elec toral Tribunal is a signifi cant landmark in the politi May 1967 33 cal and legal history of this country. It is a bold and unprecedented step towards a firmer growth of political democracy which is being dangerously threatened into becoming a meaningless phrase by the money power among others. It gives an in creased measure of assurance to greater freedom and fairer equality in the contest for votes in elections for public positions. Its effect may be to improve the opportunities of the people to choose can didates on the basis of their personal merit, ability, and character rather on their ca pacity to distribute thousands and even million of pesos to add to their personal posses sions the powers of public office. This statement is not intended to mean that rich men and .women running for public office are necessarily incompetent or dishonest. It is rather a reference to the power of wealthy candidates and their well-known pro pensity to use excessive sums in their ambition to win that need to be effectively curb ed if democracy is to grow in our country. In the interest of freedom fend equality, and for the security of our democratic institutions, this decision of the Senate Electoral Tribunal should be accepted by our people as a social and poli tical blessing which, if strict ly and faithfully observed in principle and action, may bid fair to undermine the pro pensity of both the old ca ciques and the new rich to monopolize public elective positions in order to acquire the power, prestige, and honor that they inordinately desire primarily for their per sonal benefit and enjoyment. In a serious discussion of this momentous action, we should take care that we do not confuse our idea of the law and our understanding of the value of the Electoral Tribunal’s judgment. This has been assailed by a num ber of commentators as a tragic application of what they call an antiquated and unrealistic law which fixes the amount of P7,200 as the maximum figure for the elec tion campaign expenses of a senatorial candidate. It is claimed that this is too mea ger to cover all supposedly needed items of election ex pense. This kind of criticism is a thoughtless simplifica 34 Panorama tion and misconception of the fundamental object of the law and an incorrect un derstanding of the Electoral Tribunal’s action. Any loose talk against a law of this nature could only be based on the idea that an election in a democracy must of necessity involve an expenditure large enough to cover all the needs of a can didate. But we should not forget that the salary of a public official should pro perly serve as an acceptable basis of what he should per sonally spend in his own campaign for his election. To spend more than that is to place himself under some suspicion that he has some ulterior motive in his desire to occupy the position; and he is moist likely to exploit his office, if elected, to re cover his expenses or to pay back his rich supporters in one way or another through the use of his official in fluence. We have to admit that some people think that an election is really a political skirmish for a chance to en rich in public office. With that thought in mind, they believe that there should be no prudent limitations on expenditures and no sensible restraints of any kftid on methods to win, including character assassination, ex cept that, if they can help it, candidates and their body guards should not go to the extent of openly killing each other for their partisan cause. We have to admit that a considerable number of our public officials have had to invest large sums of money to get themselves elected. According to a veteran Fili ppino legislator, a candidate for the position- of represen tative in the last 10 or 12 years needs at least P200.000 to put up a ' good election fight for that ppst. With out that kind of money, it is useless to run for a seat in the House. In the case of Senators, one has to spend much more. We have to ad mit that such expenditures are not merely for a candi date’s personal trips and mo derate publicity in the radio and newspapers. Everybody knows that they include pay ment for transportation and meals for his supporters, ad vances to voters, salaries of candidates’ bodyguards, as sistants, watchers, and all May 1967 35 sorts of election-day workers. Most Filipinos above 25 years are personally aware of these. As to the American practice, Prof. McKean has extensively treated it in his work on Parly and Pressure Politics The value of the law and its application by the Senate Electoral Tribunal may be keenly felt and appreciated when it is remembered that corruption, the canker that could destroy a republic, is usually the effect of the abuse of financial power. In the case of the criminal prosecu tion against Senator New berry of Michigan who ran for the Senate against the car manufacturer Henry Ford and was accused of spending more than what the law pro vided for primary elections, the < Unitjed States Supreme Court quoted in its decision a celebrated statement of the erudite Justice Miller in a previous case which pointed out the need of every repub lican government to secure its elections from the in fluence of "violence, of cor ruption, and of fraud." The eminent Justice went on say: "If it (the government) has not this power it is helpless before the two great natural and historical enemies of all republics, open violence and insidious corruption.” (Quot ed in Newberry vs. U.S., 256 U.S. 323). Newberry, how ever, was not convicted on the ground that the congres sional statute on state pri mary elections was at that time still considered outside the federal authority; it is no longer so today. To consider as unrealistic a limitation on a candidate’s election expenses is to ignore the ethical nature of a public office as a public trust; it is not property in any sense of the term. Hence, it is not simply illegal but incredibly immoral to buy it in ‘any form under a democratic gov ernment and in a republican state. To say that under the present law in this country one has to spend much larger than P7.200 for a campaign without any reference to the compensation attached to the office or to some reasonable and pertinent factor is to continue leaving the door wide open for wealthy can didates or for candidates sup ported by large vested in terests as political patrons not only to use vast sums for all kinds of publicity, clean 36 Panorama or filthy, but even to buy voters under various devious modes and pretenses. This could be the realism which some people refer to when they condemn the decision of the Electoral Tribunal as un realistic. The realism we should be concerned of should be the realism of • democracy, rather than the so-called realism of expensive propaganda, expen sive private army of body guards for the candidate, ex pensive procedure of recruit ing voters, and expensive methods of beguiling the electorate in a country in which most voters are not quite aware of the signifi cance and value of their bal lots. American instances of ex cessive spending to secure elective positions should be of interest to us in this coun try. In his recent book on Our Changing Constitution, the writer Charles Leedham tells us about John Edward Sullivan Addicks, a financial baron at the turn of the cen tury who acquired a massive personal fortune thru corpo rate manipulations and gov ernment contracts, from state legislatures. After netting an extra million dollars from a Siberian railroad contract, he decided to run for the U.S. Senate in Delaware. Feeling sure of the power of his wealth he hired agents to secure votes for him, offer ing to pay voters’ taxes and personal obligations, and pro viding men with money to get themselves elected in the State legislature. Unfor tunately, his efforts failed to get himself elected inspite of the fact that a Senator at that time was elected only by members of the state legisla ture. All attempts at bribery and corruption failed to con vince the Delaware legisla tors to elect a man as their Senator simply because he was rich and a liberal spender. Could such a thing happen in another country where de mocratic institutions are not yet firmly understood and entrenched? Our honest an swer is no. Some more decisions of the kind handed down by our Senate Electoral Tribunal, specially w'hen arrived at and released more expeditiously and promptly, will make de mocracy in this country more alive, vital, vigorous, rod, May 1967 37 and respected than a thou sand speeches on democracy by public officials, lectures by learned professors on free dom and equality, sermons on the sacredness of the right of suffrage, and campaigns of clubs and associations of independent and so-called free voters. The only way to make the proud and irres ponsible politicians in this country respect the rule of law is to remove them from the pedestal of power once they are caught to have placed themselves above the law. This is the realism our country and people must in sist on. The problem of reducing the influence of wealth in the election of public offi cials is not an easy one. It has iserioysly faced republics from the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans to the present. It should be met with a practical solution that should recognize the inevita ble need of expenditure. The common practice in the United States and England is for the party of the candi date to spend for his election campaign. Contribution to the party’s fund for this pur pose are permitted; but they have to be reported and pub lished as required by law. The Federal and State Cor rupt Practices Acts require that party committeees and candidates should file reports of their receipts and expen ditures before and after elec tion or on certain dates be fore a general election. The Federal Law requires that the names and addresses of all contributors as well as the amounts they contribute must be filed and reported. Under our Constitution the enforcement of similar requirements, if adopted by our government, could per haps be placed under the Commission on Elections in the case of the elections of all public officials except perhaps those affecting mem bers of Congress which should be placed under the proper Electoral Tribunal of each House. In order to give equal chances to all quali fied candidates, rich and poor alike, limitations on propa ganda materials in the form of newspaper advertisements, radio broadcasts, T.V. an nouncements, handbills, bill boards, and other forms of publicity should be adopted. The cost of all these should 38 Panorama be borne by the party, the candidate, and the govern ment. A limited franking privilege for each candidate for a national office has been suggested by students on the subject for the purpose of a more equitable use of the mails. The reason behind the sug gestion that some sort of public subsidy be provided for election campaigns is that elections are in fact part of the procedure for the organi zation and operation of a de mocratic government. If the government provides offices for the use of legislative lob bies, if it maintains offices for the regulation of private businesses, such as a sugar board, an abaca corporation, a coconut corporation, and the • like,. there is no reason why there should not be pro vided funds for better infor mation and guidance of voters in the selection of their officials, for greater sti mulation of interest in pub lic affairs, and for assisting “capable but impecunious persons to engage in political activity.” Professor McKean gives us the following infor mation: "Oregon and North Dako ta now publish candidate’s pamphlets, although not en tirely at public expense. One student of these pamphlets, who believes that they ‘have performed a valuable public service in providing informa tion to the voters helpful to them in the performance of their duties,’ recommends that the device be carried even further: It would seem that if a state makes its election ma chinery available to a can didate for public office, it is justified in requiring every candidate to co operate by furnishing a portrait cut, simple biogra phy, platform, and other information needed to give the voters an understand ing of his qualifications. To require every candi date, except those whose nomination or election is not opposed,^.{o take at least one page in the can didates’ pamphlet, would be reasonable.” But something else should be considered: It is the in different or ignorant voter who needs urging and some times asks for transportation to go to the polling place. May 1967 39 For him a number of coun tries have laws imposing a penalty for failiqg to comply with his civic obligation to cast his vote. In a sense, this is part of his duty as a citi zen to defend the state, the democratic state, which he may be required to perform. — V. G. Sinco. SALUTATION TO THE DAWN Look to this day For it is life, the very life of life. In its brief course Lie all the verities and realities of your existence; The bliss of growth The glory of action The splendor of beauty, For yesterday is but a dream And tomorrow is only a vision, But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness And every tomorrow a vision of hope. Look well, therefore, to this day! Such is the salutation to the dawn. — Kalidasa. 4G Panorama
pages: 33-40