At his first press conference after losing the 2007 general election, a bruised and burdened Perry Christie declared that the number one reason for the loss was that Hubert Ingraham and the Free National Movement (FNM) were better funded than the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).
Christie said special interest groups and "hidden forces" had financed the FNM's campaign. Of course, a post-election report commissioned by the leadership of the PLP -- which it tried hard to suppress -- confirmed what many of us already knew: The perception of Christie as a weak and indecisive leader, and the many scandals that had plagued his administration were the major reasons voters kicked the PLP out of office.
Christie no doubt sought to comfort himself by pointing to the money issue. When he had an opportunity to legislatively address the issue of money in politics, he passed it up, even after repeatedly claiming this was something he was committed to doing. Christie is masterful at talking. He is challenged at doing. As it now stands, there are no controls over who gives to political parties and how much they give. There are widespread perceptions that ill-gotten gains are used to win elections.
In a November 2006 diplomatic cable, an official at the U.S. Embassy in Nassau said it was "widely accepted" that the government's extradition of drug convict Samuel "Ninety" Knowles would lead to "withdrawal of an important source of election funding".
That diplomat noted, "Corruption in politics is a serious but largely ignored problem in The Bahamas. This corruption is a product of a lack of transparency about the government's decision-making and financial dealings, a lack of any campaign finance rules regarding the origin of donations, the pressure to spend heavily -- and become heavily indebted to financial supporters -- during campaign season, and a culture of secrecy in Bahamian government and politics." That same cable observed that in The Bahamas there is an election process that continues to include open provision of gifts to voters and political parties in the search for influence.
The diplomat wrote: "Politicians traditionally spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to gain a parliamentary seat in a country of 300,000 persons. Much of the money is used to purchase gifts for voters, from Christmas hams to household appliances. To finance these gifts, politicians turn to outside support, with an understanding that help financing a successful campaign results in the award of government contracts.
"As one Cabinet minister observed, there are no controls or limits other than the conscience of the politician. 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.
Glass houses
Despite Christie's declarations, there has never been any demonstration of political will that he is interested in addressing the campaign finance issue. Before the 2012 general election, Christie also said if elected, he would ensure the government provides some sort of election funding for parties and individuals running in a general election.
Speaking at a parliamentary conclave in July 2012, just weeks after returning to office, Christie said the practice of politicians using money to sway voters had deteriorated to "repugnant" and sometimes "criminal" levels over the preceding 15 years.
"We have to be honest with ourselves here, brutally honest with ourselves in the recognition that practices have evolved in The Bahamas over the last 10 years, 15 years that are repugnant to best practices in our democracy. Do we have the will to address what we know to exist in the best interest of this democracy?" he asked.
A day earlier, Christie told the House of Assembly that two international groups that monitored the May general election called for the government to create laws that would limit campaign spending. The groups also recommended that the government prohibit anonymous donations or international donors from giving money to campaigns and to create a mechanism to oversee the flow of money within campaigns.
The prime minister told reporters he knew of many instances where politicians used money to buy votes. He said he was committed to initiating discussions with the political parties over the matter of money in elections. But there has been no indication he has moved such an effort forward.
Earlier this year, Opposition Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis told The Tribune that Bahamians could be assured that he would implement a campaign finance law if he becomes prime minister "so people could have a completely transparent process and we could end the possibility of a government being manipulated and controlled by its financial backers".
While prime minister, Hubert Ingraham had said he would have no difficulty "whatsoever" disclosing the source of his funding. The source was never disclosed. He also demonstrated no enthusiasm about drafting any laws to address campaign funding.
In 2011, Ingraham pointed out that those countries that do have campaign finance laws have found them to be "very ineffective".
"What they spend on elections in the United States is unbelievable and they have campaign finance laws. You cannot legislate honesty. The dishonest would be dishonest no matter what you do," he said.
Indeed, the matter of campaign spending has been long-standing.
More than 30 years ago, a bill was drafted under the Pindling government "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". The bill never made it off the shelf. Years later, Christie said a campaign finance law is "a critical reality to the integrity of elections".
In 2009, he suggested that The Bahamas establish laws to govern the funding of political campaigns after it was suggested that an accused money launderer was interested in funding his re-election campaign. In its campaign plan as far back as 2002, the PLP promised to address the campaign finance issue. It did not.
In 2004, Christie faced a firestorm when Iranian businessman Mohammed Harajchi claimed he pumped millions of dollars into the PLP's 2002 campaign.
"Both of The Bahamas' two major political parties live in glass houses when it comes to campaign contributions," then U.S. Charge d' Affaires Robert Witajewski later wrote of the affair.
"Harajchi claims to have been about putting down explicit quid pro quo markers in return for the contributions.
"As much as the FNM opposition might like to exploit Harajchi's corruption charges leveled against the Christie government and cast some rocks at the PLP's home, it knows that it too cannot afford close scrutiny of the source -- and quid pro quos -- of its own party's campaign contributions."
Angered by Harajchi's claim, Christie promised a full accounting of his contributions to the party. Not surprisingly, more than 10 years later he has failed to deliver
In 2006, the late Paul Adderley, who headed the Constitutional Review Commission, said The Bahamas has been "severely influenced" by money in politics now for more than 100 years and it is time to do something about that.
Years after the Harajchi controversy, the FNM faced claims from the PLP that the Arawak container port was structured as a pay back to big financial backers. And in 2013, the FNM accused the Christie administration of doing favors for fashion mogul Peter Nygard as pay back for election contributions.
Secret
Approaching another election season, the fight for power will largely be dictated by political parties' ability to spend. We have no doubt that come 2017, or whenever the prime minister calls the election, the PLP will be desperate to hang on to power. It is already using tax dollars for a public relations campaign known as "Stronger Bahamas" to push the PLP's message and shore up its tattered image. Notwithstanding the electorate's anger and disappointment toward the Christie administration, the FNM will need to be well funded to topple the PLP.
Ahead of the 2007 election, money did not appear to be a problem for the Hubert Ingraham-led Free National Movement.
The campaign appeared well funded. After the FNM was defeated in 2012, Ingraham revealed that the party was $1 million in debt. He said funding had been a challenge in the recent campaign.
Last week, several senior FNMs privately shared their concerns to us about whether their party will be able to attract traditional and new financial backers with Dr. Hubert Minnis as leader. They recognized that Minnis is not inspirational and some financiers do not think he has what it takes to run the country. One observer also claimed that some of these monied interests might fear they can't control him or influence him.
A few months ago, we asked Minnis whether he was concerned funding might be an issue. Minnis told us that at the mid term, it was not unusual that the party would be having issues with funding. Whether the FNM will have enough dollars to prove a formidable force against the PLP remains to be seen.
What is apparent is political parties will continue to keep secret the names of their donors. Despite the various declarations over the years, many politicians fear any move toward transparency could lead to dried up funding, especially in a small society. Many donors prefer to remain anonymous. And many politicians might find it hard to give a full, honest accounting of the money they receive and spend. Thus, in the absence of demands from the electorate, it does not appear likely that we will see any moves toward the regulation of campaign funding anytime soon.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
