Sir Lynden's Money Bill
By CANDIA DAMES
Guardian News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
A bill to govern money in politics that was drafted more than three decades ago under the Pindling administration was dead on arrival, National Review can reveal.
The comprehensive proposed act “to make provision for the registration of political parties; for the regulation and control of political contributions; for the public funding of elections and for other purposes incidental thereto and connected therewith” never made it to the halls of Parliament.
Perhaps it’s because there was no political will to do so.
Thirty-one years after the campaign finance bill was drafted, there are still calls from some politicians — and from other Bahamians — for a law to govern money in politics.
But there is still no political will to do so.
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said earlier this year he does not believe that campaign financing laws are necessary, adding that the government cannot "legislate honesty."
However, Ingraham said he would have no difficulty whatsoever disclosing the sources of his political financing.
Ingraham said campaign finance laws are found to be very ineffective in countries where they are in place.
"The United States is a good example," he said.
"The campaign financing laws are very ineffective. What they spend on elections in the US is unbelievable and they have campaign finance laws. You cannot legislate honesty. The dishonest will be dishonest no matter what you do. That's why people still murder other people even though the law says 'thou should not kill'."
Under the Christie administration, while there was a stated commitment to such a law and even attention given to the issue by the much-touted constitutional review commission, there was no action on bringing legislation to Parliament.
After Prime Minister Ingraham revealed recently that Opposition Leader Perry Christie had neglected to forward recommendations for changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act months after being invited in writing to do so, Christie spoke with us about the kinds of changes he wished to see.
High on his list was a desire for a campaign finance law, perhaps similar to the 1980 bill he reportedly had knowledge of, but which continued to catch dust on a shelf.
“It is critical really to the integrity of elections,” said Christie recently, adding that the Progressive Liberal Party was looking at laws passed in the region “to ensure that we not only make sound recommendations, but recommendations that have been tested”.
He said the Ingraham administration ought to be addressing the issue of money in elections.
Asked why he never did, Christie expressed regret that other priorities meant that his administration never got around to bringing a bill to govern campaign finances.
“Everything evolves in a country and when I first came into office I actually spoke very strongly about a code of ethics, and I wanted to bring that into law and I didn’t do it,” he said.
“And so, you look back and you know that you had an opportunity to influence laws for the good and you regret, but that is what politics is all about — the priorities that we had; the pace of governance has put me in a position where you can look back and say ‘yeah I did a lot of things, but my goodness, I wish I had done that’.
“...You always have regrets and so I’m not going to be distracted by the fact that we had the opportunity and we didn’t.”
THE 1980 BILL
George Smith, who was a member of the Pindling Cabinet in 1980, said he was aware of discussions Pindling had about the need for a campaign finance law. But he never knew a bill was actually drafted.
Not many people did apparently.
Under the 37-page bill obtained by National Review as part of its examination of the money in politics issue, a registrar of political parties would have been appointed.
That person would have been able to, at any reasonable time, enter the premises of a political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act to examine its books, papers and documents and would have been able to request such information as he may reasonably require to discharge his responsibilities.
If the bill had been passed, contributions to political parties, party branches and candidates could only be made by individuals, companies and trade unions.
No person or entity would have been able to make a contribution using money that did not belong to him, or that was given to him by another person or entity.
The bill also mandated that all moneys contributed to political parties, party branches and candidates in excess of $100 could only be made by a check having the name of the contributor legibly printed, signed by the contributor and drawn on an account in the contributor’s name or by a money order signed by the contributor.
The bill would have required contributions to be paid into the appropriate depository on record with the registrar of political parties.
It also mandated that any anonymous contribution valued in excess of $25 received shall not be used or expended, but shall be returned to the contributor if the contributor’s identity could be established, and if the contributor’s identity could not be established, the contribution would be turned over to the registrar and forwarded to the treasurer of The Bahamas.
Under the Act, if it had been passed, contributions by any person, company or trade union would have been limited to $10,000 per year to each party, and $1,000 to any registered party branch.
It also said that no political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act could directly or indirectly, knowingly accept contributions from any person normally resident outside The Bahamas or from any company that does not carry on business in The Bahamas or from any trade union that is not registered in The Bahamas.
The bill would have also mandated that all political party have a chief financial officer responsible for proper records, ensuring that contributions are placed in the appropriate depository and financial statements are filed with the registrar of political parties.
The chief financial officer would also have been responsible for ensuring that contributions consisting of goods or services were valued and recorded.
The bill also would have mandated that party borrowing from financial institutions were properly recorded.
Under the law, all moneys to be used for a political campaign by a candidate out of his or her own funds would be deemed to be a contribution.
In addition to covering a number of other key areas, including campaign advertising, the bill also outlined a number of offenses.
For example, any chief financial office of a political party, party branch or candidate registered under the Act, who contravened any of the provisions would have been guilty and liable to a fine of $1,000.
Again, the bill was drafted in 1980.
Had it been passed by Parliament, no prosecution could be instituted without the consent in writing of the attorney general.
It still is unclear today why the bill was never brought to Parliament.
George Smith offered a view in this regard: “I guess it didn’t get on the front burner because the party was winning based on its performance. In many constituencies in the country, like in Exuma where I ran, though wealthy individuals ran against me I won handsomely, as did my colleague, Livingston Coakley,” he said.
“It wasn’t considered a priority. I think we were preoccupied with other things like social legislation, a works program, trying to expand the tourism plant. We were trying to expand agriculture and the fisheries industry, growing the economy with some diversification.”
Smith said political parties should win elections based on their philosophies, programs and quality of candidates.
“If we use that approach money would only matter when those things are not in the forefront of what a party is running on,” he said.
MONEY MATTERS
In politics as in life, money does matter.
I remember the first press conference hosted by Perry Christie after he lost the government in 2007.
The one question he tried to avoid was the one that should have been the most obvious: What do you believe led to your defeat?
After insisting that it was a matter that would require deep consideration, Christie said he believed the Progressive Liberal Party was outspent by Hubert Ingraham and his Free National Movement.
Indeed, political parties have scraped together substantial sums of money in their bid for power.
A 2003 U.S. diplomatic cable previously reported on by The Nassau Guardian said Tommy Turnquest, then leader of the FNM, revealed that his party would need to spend between $150,000 and $250,000 on a potential by-election in the then Holy Cross constituency.
In that same cable, obtained through WikiLeaks, former PLP MP and businessman Franklyn Wilson told a U.S. Embassy official that his party spent around $7 million on the 2002 general election campaign.
Because money donated in The Bahamas to political parties is donated with the understanding that the donors’ identities will not be publicly disclosed, political parties are under an ‘unofficial obligation’ to keep the sources of party financing secret, noted the cable.
The Americans either had a fascination with The Bahamas’ lack of campaign finance laws, or deep concerns about this, because they widely discussed the issue of money in politics in their cables to Washington, DC.
They noted in a 2004 cable: “Both of The Bahamas' two major political parties live in glass houses when it comes to campaign contributions.”
The cable traced the Mohammed Harajchi controversy — a situation in which political contributions backfired in a very nasty and public way.
The Iranian businessman claimed that he had been approached, either directly or via intermediaries, by ‘90 percent of the (Christie) Cabinet’ for campaign contributions, had helped to refurbish PLP headquarters, and had underwritten several PLP political rallies, among other things.
Harajchi denied that his contributions (allegedly $10 million) were designed to gain reinstatement of his bank's operating license, which had been revoked in 2001.
At a press conference, the PLP emphasized that it is neither illegal nor improper for political parties in The Bahamas to accept donations from individuals, and highlighted attention on Harajchi's confirmation that he had received no favor or promise in exchange for his financial donation.
In a 2006 cable, still on the subject of money in politics, an American diplomat wrote that it is “widely accepted” that the government’s extradition of convicted drug dealer Samuel ‘Ninety’ Knowles would lead to “withdrawal of an important source of election funding”.
“As one Cabinet minister observed, there are no controls or limits other than the conscience of the politician,” the diplomat wrote. “In addition, money can come from any source, including international donors.”
The cable said millions of dollars were allegedly obtained from “questionable sources” in the 2002 campaign.
Almost 10 years after that historic election, questions of money in politics — and questionable money in politics — still linger with a new election season upon us.
And while there are several key bills the Ingraham administration must bring if it is to fulfill legislative promises, a money bill like the secret 1980 document is not among them.
Jul 18, 2011
thenassauguardian
