Senior Investigative Reporter
shaliza.hassanali@guardian.co.tt
As election day draws near, money is flowing faster than the campaign promises in this high-stakes showdown.
With 161 candidates in the race and 17 political parties vying for power, the April 28 general election is shaping up to be very expensive—well beyond the $8 million cap if everyone stuck to the $50,000 spending limit.
Smaller parties are overwhelmed by the financial muscle of major parties like the People’s National Movement (PNM) and the United National Congress (UNC).
Over the past month, candidates in the large parties have been spending heavily on jerseys, banners, flags, trailer trucks, bandanas, massive billboards, posters, PA systems, and other paraphernalia in their constituencies to win over voters.
They have also gone on a spending spree, covering costs for chair rentals, special effects, decorative lighting, sound systems, large screens, and live performances to host nightly meetings. The tab for the final rally and motorcade for these parties is likely to be huge.
While the smaller political parties have been using social media to market themselves, the UNC and PNM have been flooding the airwaves, television stations and print media with advertisements, which comes at a heavy price.
Smaller parties are finding it hard to compete for the votes of the electorate. They complain that the lack of accountability and transparency is making it unfair. The parties are gravely concerned that unchecked, excessive campaign spending by major parties creates an unequal electoral environment that stifles fair competition.
Allegations include the distribution of cash, appliances and furniture to the tune of millions to bribe voters. Concerns have also been raised about financiers expecting a return on their investments in the form of state contracts and influence.
Study shows $500 million spent for 2010 election
Political scientist Dr Bishnu Ragoonath stated that this year’s campaign spending could reach nearly $400 million.
Ragoonath blamed the spending on the failure of past and present governments to implement campaign finance legislation.
“No government has seen it fit to treat with the issue,” he added.
Ragoonath explained that he and a team of independent observers arrived at the $400 million figure after a major party provided them with a detailed breakdown of campaign expenses in the 2010 election. He noted that the unofficial study showed around $500 million was spent in 2010.
In reviewing the expenses, Ragoonath highlighted that the majority of the funds went toward advertising and live TV and radio broadcasts. Additionally, stipends were paid to individuals who accompanied candidates each evening, and money was given to those who put up posters on light poles and walls.
“These efforts aren’t done for free,” Ragoonath said. “Many underestimate the costs involved in running a serious campaign. All of these are small but significant expenses.”
He said the current legislation on campaign financing under the Representation of the People Act is archaic.
Section 48 of the Act allows each general election candidate to spend $50,000 on their campaign. The limit for local government election candidates is $25,000.
“Where are they getting the money from? I don’t know. The onus is only on the candidates to maintain their $50,000 limit. There is no regulation controlling political parties. There is no limit to what the political party should spend, and there is no declaration.”
Recalling the estimated cost of the 2010 general election campaign, Ragoonath said a constituency meeting was between “$20,000 and $50,000” at the time. A national meeting cost around $200,000.
“We estimated way back in 2010 the cost of that campaign alone was close to $500 million.”
He said this year’s figure could match up to 2010, given the exorbitant spending.
Ragoonath said it was not the business of the Council for Responsible Political Behaviour, which he chairs, to raise the issue of campaign financing.
“We cannot go beyond the parameters of our code.”
The People’s Partnership, in its 2010 manifesto, promised campaign finance legislation, while the PNM promoted the legislation as a priority in the 2015 general election.
The bill to replace the Representation of the People Act to regulate campaign finance was carried over from the 2015-2020 Parliament to the 2020-2025 Parliament and lapsed with the dissolution.
To date, nothing has changed.
The legislation would have helped reduce incentives for corruption, level the playing field among candidates and force political parties to identify financiers and disclose their campaign expenditures.
JSC: EBC should perform compliance and enforcement functions
In 2014, a Joint Select Committee (JSC) was formed to propose a legislative framework to govern the financing of elections.
Chaired by the UNC’s Wade Mark, the committee established a detailed report on campaign financing in 2015.
The report indicated that over the last five general elections, candidates had surpassed the $50,000 spending limit, although the exact amount of the excess was not disclosed. Additionally, the sources of funding remained unclear.
The committee proposed that there must be limits on private campaign financing of political parties and candidates to promote fair competition and reduce incentives for corruption and undue influence in politics.
“Open and transparent funding of parties and candidates is crucial in the fight against corruption and to gain and maintain citizens’ trust in politics. The new procurement legislation would play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and transparency in the award of government contracts,” the report stated.
The report cited that the current laws governing the conduct of elections were inadequate and suggested that the Elections and Boundaries Commission (EBC) may be the most suitable body to perform compliance and enforcement functions and “should be established as the political finance regulator.”
Through the establishment of the Office of the Director of Campaign and Public Financing, the report stated, the EBC shall have oversight powers to enforce political finance law in administrative, civil and criminal forums and impose sanctions and heavy monetary penalties for serious violations.
Last March, then prime minister Dr Keith Rowley promised his government would bring campaign finance legislation to the Parliament sometime in 2024.
Rowley stated that the Government had sent the legislation to a JSC in the hope that it would have gotten support from the Opposition and independent parliamentarians. However, it failed to find support from their colleagues.
On Wednesday, questions were sent to EBC’s Chief Elections Officer, Fern Narcis, but up until yesterday, there was no reply.
BOX
What the parties say
The Sunday Guardian reached out to 16 of the 17 political parties contesting the general election to query if their candidates intended to stay within the $50,000 spending limit.
PNM, UNC
Despite sending questions to the PNM and UNC, the two main heavyweights in the election race, they opted not to respond.
PNM’s PRO Faris Al-Rawi and UNC chairman Davendranath Tancoo shied away from the issue.
Mickela Panday PF
Mickela Panday, who has 37 Patriot Front candidates, said she has no intention of crossing the spending cap.
“What we do not have in financial resources, we will make up for in human resources.”
She said exceeding the limit creates an unfair advantage.
“You need to only look around to see how much money is being spent, from nominations day onwards. Where is this money when people are calling their offices for assistance? There is absolutely no accountability and transparency. It’s the same old story: collect millions of dollars, enrich yourself and promise to pay back with taxpayers’ dollars and state positions when in government.”
Panday said the PNM and UNC are not willing to play on a fair field, so campaign finance reform will never be part of their legislative agenda.
Gary Griffith NTA
National Transformation Alliance leader Gary Griffith said his 17 candidates have been conservative with their spending. He described the $50,000 limit as a big joke. Griffith said financiers fund the major parties by giving cash.
“So there is no accountability. When you look at the amount of money that is being spent, no political party is willing to show their accounts to the public because they would not want the public to know their financiers and how much they give. It is unethical and sickening.
“They have millions to blow, most of which come indirectly through the taxpayers. They would have major contractors and businesses in the private sector that would get multimillion-dollar state contracts from the Government.”
When the election is called, Griffith said, “It’s payback time. Deals are cut, and cash is given back to the political parties.”
Griffith said some parties have also been accused of bribing voters with appliances and money. “We do not intend to go down that direction.”
Phillip Alexander PEP
Phillip Alexander of the Progressive Empowerment Party said, “We’ve always been able to do much with less and strictly adhere to the rules.”
Ricardo Phillip CARM
Leader of the Class Action Reform Movement Ricardo Phillip said he would not fight the big parties who are pelting out loud money to survive.
“There is no way I could raise $400 million to compete with the UNC and PNM.”
This election, Phillip said, his Tobago-based party would work in the trenches and keep within the spending limit.
Denise Tsoiafatt-Angus IDA
Denise Tsoiafatt-Angus, whose party, the Innovative Democratic Alliance, is fighting the two Tobago seats, said it has been difficult because businesses have been selective in who they support financially.
“It has forced us to be quite creative.”
Marcus Ramkissoon THC
Leader of the Trinidad Humanity Campaign Marcus Ramkissoon said his party would maintain the law and had budgeted $50,000 for its three candidates.
Francis Morean HM
Lone candidate for the Hyarima Movement, Francis Morean, said his spending has been under $100.
“The average citizen is seeing the vulgarity of the amount of money being spent by the parties. It is not because these financiers love the country so much. Who pays the piper calls the tune. The people who are funding the big parties are not doing it for philanthropy.”
Garvin Nicholas MND
Movement for National Development leader Garvin Nicholas said he has not been “spending a whole heap of money.” However, this may change for the election day machinery.
In the Diego Martin North East seat he’s contesting, Nicholas said there are deep pockets. “A lot of money is being handed out.”
Fuad Abu Bakr NNV
Vying for the Port-of-Spain South seat under the New National Vision, Fuad Abu Bakr said he has been spending wisely as the sole candidate.
He said $200,000 was a conservative figure for a simple campaign.
However, the cost of campaigning can balloon if the candidate wants to go all out.
“This is what people are putting out for the power of office. The downside is that all of this money must be repaid to the financier one way or the other. Everything comes with a price.”
Abu Bakr said, “If the wrong party is elected, it’s the people who lose and feel the pinch. We have seen it over the years.”
Nalini Dial NCT
Founder of the National Coalition for Transformation Nalini Dial said $50,000 was more than enough to fund a campaign.
“So far, I have spent $7,000, which includes my nomination fee.”
Dial said she would only be spending $10,000.
Farley Augustine TPP
Tobago’s People’s Party Farley Augustine provided no answers to our questions.
Kezel Jackson APP
All People’s Party leader Kezel Jackson promised to respond but did not.
Watson Duke PDP
Repeated calls to Progressive Democratic Patriots leader Watson Duke‘s cellphone went unanswered.
Nkocy Phillips UOTP
Unity Of The People, led by Nkocy Phillips, could not be contacted.
