Rocketing election expenses have become a matter of serious concern for candidates and their campaign managers. Staying within the spending limits set by the Central Election Commission is proving to be a Herculean task. Nothing seems to escape the vigilant eyes of the Commission — expenditure monitoring cells are working overtime to keep tabs on poll spending and check any violations of the EC's norms.
The candidates and agents say in private that the expenditure limit is inadequate and unrealistic, despite the Commission enhancing the limit from Rs.10 lakh in 2006 to Rs.16 lakh. But they refuse to stick their neck out for fear of incurring the Commission's wrath.
The general feeling is that the Commission has not taken into consideration the changes in the campaign mode and spending over the years. Even the slightest uptick in prices of commodities will reflect on the campaign bill.
In simple terms, the cost of a cup of tea has increased from Rs.2.50 in 2006 to Rs.5 today. A corresponding increase has been registered in mobile phone and fuel bills.
Often, printing costs are cited as the main reason for the overall rise in expenses. But there has been no phenomenal increase under this head. Against the Rs.3 spent for a multicoloured poster in 2006, the cost has gone up to Rs.5 now.
The printing cost of flex boards varies between Rs.9 and Rs.11 per sq. ft. Stiff competition in this industry is being cited as the reason for the competitive rates.
Lion's share
A lion's share of the campaign funds goes towards fuel bills and the expenses incurred on mobilising foot-soldiers for house visits, distributing bills and manning booths.
But these expenses are not included in the official expenditure submitted to the Commission for clearance.
Candidates and campaigners are often compelled to furnish concocted statements to stay within the limits set by the Commission.
The situation calls for serious debate on either State-funding of polls or a realistic enhancement of the spending limits proportionate to the inflationary pressures, say experts.
According to former State Election Commissioner and National Delimitation Commission member K. Mohandas, State-funding is the best option. He says it will block the channels that pump black money into the campaigning, and that contesting elections will not become a prerogative of the moneyed class.
Corporate houses
“Corporate houses now play a significant role in the elections. While supporting candidates with money and might, it turns out to be a quid pro quo deal and clearly paves the way for corruption and unethical parliamentary practices. State-funding of elections is the panacea to such problems,” Mr. Mohandas says.
Contesting elections will become easier for everyone, and this will give the deserving a chance to seek public office, he says. He says that much of the campaign is now being done by the media, and there is no need for another round of personalised campaigns which demand more money and men. By reducing the campaign period, the Commission has already taken the first step towards curbing expenses. This can be complemented by State-funding.
Mr. Mohandas also sounds a note of caution about the problems that are likely to arise from the decision to grant voting rights to NRIs. Unless supported by adequate safeguards, NRI businessmen will contest elections and then move out of the country to become totally inaccessible to voters.
He says that till the Centre decides on State-funding, the Commission should evolve a new set of norms to set expenditure limits.
Along with inflationary pressures, it should consider the expenditure and hardships faced by candidates and their agents in reaching out to the more inaccessible voters.
