After the 2007 general election, when the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) suffered an embarrassing defeat, Perry Christie claimed the reason for the loss was that the Free National Movement (FNM) had outspent the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).
In his mind, money was the main reason the tide turned against the PLP.
It could not have been because of bad governance, scandals, his failure to deal with compromised ministers who had abused their power, or anything else of the sort.
On the morning of May 10, 2017, as he had done so many other times in the past, Christie pledged that the PLP administration would address the issue of money in politics through regulations.
It was the very last day of his term in office. We suspected then that the voters would not give him another chance to take them for a ride with his empty promises and meaningless commitments.
Speaking to reporters after he gave his last speech as prime minister -- having addressed a memorial at the Royal Bahamas Defence Force Base for the four marines who perished in the 1980 Flamingo incident -- Christie said: "It is for me quite a surprise to see the millions of dollars that have been poured into advertising for and on behalf of the opposition party.
"We hope that we have survived it. And if we have, we hope that the result will be changes to our rules and regulations and will minimize the extent to which we are able to have, whether for or against, the level of foreign intrusion."
Christie's comments came two weeks after the media revealed that Shane Gibson, one of his ministers, received direct payments of $5,000 into a U.S. bank account from Peter Nygard, a controversial permanent resident, who was seeking certain approvals from the government.
Gibson said the money was for community projects.
Christie never addressed that matter.
The May 10 interview was the last one he gave as prime minister.
Had the PLP "survived it" -- as Christie put it -- we doubt seriously Christie would have given the issue of campaign financing any consideration whatsoever.
It was simply his style to pontificate on such matters without translating it into action.
In July 2012, shortly after he was reelected, Christie said at a Parliamentary Conclave at the British Colonial Hilton that the practice of politicians using money to sway voters had deteriorated to "repugnant" and sometimes "criminal" levels.
He said, "The country has to decide, opposition and governing people here, we have to decide whether or not we are prepared to put in place regulations that will govern the conduct of elections and persons who are contesting those elections with respect to the monies being spent.
"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, 15 years that are repugnant to best practices in a democracy.
"Do we have the will to address what we know to exist in the best interest of democracy?"
A day earlier, the then prime minister told the House of Assembly that the two international groups that monitored the 2012 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 create a mechanism to oversee the use of money within campaigns.
Christie claimed he knew of many instances where politicians used money to buy votes.
While in opposition in 2011, he was critical of the failure of the Ingraham administration to deal with the issue of campaign spending.
"It is critical really to the integrity of elections," said Christie, adding that the PLP was looking at laws passed in the region "to ensure that we not only make sound recommendations, but recommendations that have been tested".
We thought back to Christie's many pronouncements on this matter while listening to the Speech from the Throne last Wednesday.
In it, the Minnis administration commits to regulating campaign financing.
The government has promised to "amend the Public Disclosure Act to broaden the scope of application to include campaign finance reform and to make provisions for direct referral to an independent prosecutor".
The speech outlines the new administration's legislative priorities.
It will for sure be interesting to see if this commitment is honored.

Not a priority
All during the recent campaigns, the PLP suggested that foreign donors had poured huge sums of money into the FNM's campaign to topple the Christie administration.
The PLP, of course, never said who was funding its campaign; neither did the FNM. They were not required to, in the absence of regulations.
There seemed to be a whole lot of money coming from every direction.
For obvious reasons, the discussion surrounding the financing of campaigns usually pops up around election season.
But it has been a long-standing issue.
In the 1980s, a bill to regulate the use of money in politics was drafted during the Pindling regime.
The comprehensive proposed act "to make provision for the registration for 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 Parliament.
This matter was not a priority item during the three terms of former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham either.
When he was prime minister, Ingraham said he did 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.
"The campaign financing laws are very ineffective," he said in 2011.
"What they spend on elections in the U.S. 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'."
Pindling's bill from more than 30 years back would have mandated that all political parties have a chief financial officer responsible for proper records, to ensure that contributions are placed in the appropriate depository and financial statements are filed with the registrar of political parties.
The bill also mandated that all money 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 chief financial officer would also have been responsible for ensuring that contributions consisting of good or services were valued and recorded.
In addition to covering a number of other key areas, including campaign advertising, the bill also outlined a number of offenses.
For example, any financial officer 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, that was 30 years ago.
Former parliamentarian George Smith previously offered an explanation for why the bill died before it was brought to the House.
"It wasn't considered a priority," he told National Review.
"I think we were preoccupied with other things like social legislation, a works program, trying to expand the tourism plan. We were trying to expand agriculture and the fisheries industry, growing the economy with some diversification."
Likewise, in 2011, when Christie was critical of the Ingraham administration for not moving on the issue, Christie said the reason why he did not address it in his first administration was because other important matters took priority.

Glass houses
In 2003, during the first Christie administration, a U.S. diplomat observed in a U.S. Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks: "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 major 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.
Christie promised to provide a full accounting of Harajchi's donations.
Of course, he never did.
In a 2006 cable, an American diplomat wrote that it was "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 obtained from "questionable sources" in the 2002 campaign.
More than 15 years after that election, the issue is unaddressed.
Christie again found himself on the defensive last year after Peter Nygard, a controversial permanent resident, claimed in leaked audio tapes that he was a major financial backer of the PLP, and spoke disparagingly about Christie for failing to move on applications he had before the government related to his Lyford Cay property.
We have not heard from Nygard since Christie and the PLP were kicked out of office, but this issue of political donations was again highlighted during that sordid affair.
We will have to see if Minnis' campaign finance law promise is a serious pledge.
Turks and Caicos has led the region in regulating how political parties spend money in campaigns.
When he signed into law a Political Activities Ordinance in 2012, then Turks and Caicos Governor Ric Todd said, "This ordinance marks a big step in making TCI politics open and transparent. It will be key in avoiding the abuses that occurred in the past. I am sure it will be widely welcomed. TCI is leading the way in the region."
While any such law would be a major development for The Bahamas, the most important element in whether it would make any difference in our electoral process is whether there is the will to enforce it.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian