Why must election money be dirty?

CAMPAIGN funds” is associated with foul deeds: buying or corrupting the election.

“Funding” conjures plots of supplying money to buy votes, pirate ward leaders, bribe election officers, police, and media, and similar criminal or unethical activities.

But the campaign machinery runs on many other grooves, most of which are within the law and norm.

When Liberal Party leaders warn their local candidates they won’t be given campaign funding, do party bosses mean their bets for mayors and governors will be on their own paying the tab for office space lease, transporting and feeding campaigners; phones, faxes, and computers; flyers, posters, and streamers; media advertising, door-to-door visits, poll tracking and the like? And how about election-day demands for logistics, which can be horrifying?

Either LP strategists are b.s.-ing the public to preach the “straight path” gospel, or they’re suicidally bent to lose the election.

Fact of life

While political rivals, mostly incumbents who control public funds, are merrily wooing supporters with dole-outs, long before the onset of Christmas, in the guise of dispensing public service, LP challengers are just shaking hands and patting backs of people they expect to deliver the votes.

Most campaign money is not for dirty use. It’s essential for the election process to work so it won’t be just be a one-sided contest, won by those with access to funds, with no qualm about source or method.

Campaign financing is Election 101. Flunk it and you’re history.

[paseares@sunstar.com.ph or@gmai.com]