2.5% and no more!

THE Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), in a ground-breaking achievement, has agreed on what should be the cap on the amount of money individuals or groups can contribute to the operations of political parties.

While the report of the ECJ — the parliamentary body with oversight responsibility for the fair conduct of elections — has not yet been made public, Chairman Professor Errol Miller told the Sunday Observer that the committee had proposed that no monetary donation should exceed two-and-a-half per cent of the budget of any political party.

"It means that no single individual or group can own the party," said Miller. "What we have proposed have put the country forward. It won't be perfect in one go, but it sets us forward in the right direction."

The proposal which is intended to eliminate the practice of big donors receiving special favours when their party gains power, is among a raft of recommendations of a report on the registration and financing of political parties, that has been signed off on by ECJ members.

Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) General Secretary Karl Samuda is expected to sign the document on his return from official business in China.

The report will then be tabled in Parliament for debate as part of the long-touted financing legislation that, it is hoped, would rid the process of any form of corruption, real or perceived.

Business sector heads reacted favourably weekend when informed of the recommendation by the Sunday Observer. The sector leaders are all agreed that, if accepted by lawmakers, the recommendation would go a long way in the reform of the governance of the country, by putting up a barrier against governments being pressured into offering state contracts, board or committee positions on public bodies to donors who make exorbitant contributions, and are therefore in a position to influence policy decision.

"We all recognise that there needs to be some serious change in our governance, and political party financing reform is a critical issue that needs to be dealt with in that overall reform of our governance," said Joseph Matalon, the president of the umbrella Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ).

Added Matalon: "If in fact there is a strict limit...then it is less likely that parties could become beholden to the interest of that group. It's avoiding having politicians in a position where they are beholding to groups with special interest."

The ECJ also recommends that each political party receiving state financing inform their members at their annual general meeting of the estimate to operate the organisation. Moreover, the parties will be required to disclose their expenditure to the ECJ Disclosure Committee.

Forty per cent of the funding for the nation's two major political parties — the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People's National Party (PNP) — comes from taxpayers. A political party can only access State financing if it attracts five per cent of votes cast in a general election.

The ECJ has for some years now been working on the report, commissioned by the JLP, which had promised during the campaign leading up to the 2007 general elections that it would, if elected, enact legislation to reform party and campaign financing — especially since the questionable donation of $31 million to the former ruling PNP by Dutch oil trading firm Trafigura Beheer in 2006.

Although candidates are obligated to declare election expenses, there is no legislation for campaign financing and, as such, no prerequisite for political parties to have their accounts inspected or to disclose their funding sources.

"We do agree with that," Francis 'Paco' Kennedy, 1st vice-president of the Jamaica Chambers, in reacting to the news of the two per cent limit. "What you don't want is that the party's contribution is dominated by one or two companies which would warrant them having undue influence.

Political analyst and University lecturer, Dickie Crawford called the recommendation a welcome move, saying that for too long, groups and individuals with special interest had been reaping benefits and even directing policies because of their handsome contribution to political parties.

Crawford who gained fame as a key member of the PNP in the 1970s, noted, that in the 1970s and 1980s, contributors wielded such power that they dictated who a party should or should not select as its general secretary. Big donors, he said, had been elected president or chairmen of statutory corporations and had become advisors to the Government on policy, among other things.

"It has been a great concern because these people, whoever they may be, wield undue influence and in fact it has become so organised that contributions are made on an understanding that the contributor will get a specific reward or gain right after the party becomes elected or the candidate he favours becomes elected," Crawford said.