Rectifying campaign wrongs

Rectifying campaign wrongs

It is certainly good to learn the Election Supervisory
Committee (Panwaslu) is honoring its promise to investigate
reports of dubious donations to the campaigns of presidential
candidates Megawati Soekarnoputri and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
who will be contesting next month's runoff.

Following up on the findings of two corruption watchdogs,
Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) and Transparency International
(TI) Indonesia, the committee's office in Semarang, Central Java,
was yesterday reported to have verified one case in which three
related companies donated Rp 750 million (US$83,333) each to the
Megawati campaign. All three companies are reportedly owned,
either wholly or in part, by the same businessperson.

The question, of course, is whether this constitutes a
criminal violation of Law No. 23/2003, which prohibits candidates
from accepting donations from sources with obscure identities.

Also forbidden are donations from foreign sources or
institutions, or from the government or government-related
sources. Furthermore, the law sets limits on the amounts of money
that presidential candidates are allowed to accept, the ceiling
being Rp 100 million for an individual donation and Rp 750
million for donations from private companies.

The law also requires that candidates report all questionable
donations to the General Elections Commission (KPU) within 14
days after the end of the campaign period, and that they turn
over the money to the state treasury.

The one mitigating factor in the report by the Panwaslu office
in Semarang is that the three companies are not fictitious, as
the ICW-TI findings suggested. Presumably, it is now up to the
KPU and the relevant law enforcement authorities to determine
whether a violation of the law has occurred and what further
action must be taken, if any. In any case, Panwaslu has performed
its job as it is supposed to, at least in this particular
instance.

Unfortunately, the Semarang case is not an isolated one. Many
instances of obscure or unidentifiable campaign donors have
recently been uncovered and reported by the media, raising
questions about the integrity and trustworthiness of both
presidential candidates.

For example, the ICW said it had found no fewer than 17
individual and 13 corporate donors to the Megawati campaign who
it considered dubious, for reasons ranging from unverifiable
domicile to questionable financial standing.

In the campaign of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the ICW said it
had found two individual and 13 corporate donors it considered
dubious for the same reasons. As could be expected, the campaign
teams of both candidates have sought to refute all of the
allegations, offering explanations for the questionable funds.

A prominent member of the General Elections Commission,
Mulyana W. Kusumah, has asked anyone, individuals or
organizations, to come forward with verifiable evidence of
campaign fraud so the case can be brought to the police.

One relevant question that is easier to ask than to answer,
however, is what penalty can realistically be imposed on those
who break the election law? Law No. 23/2003 does threaten
violators with penalties such as disqualification from the
election. But what if both Megawati and Susilo were found guilty
of having violated the law?

Surely, one can see the difficulties that would face the KPU
if it took a firm stand. Perhaps, that is one of the reasons the
commission has maintained that the donations both presidential
candidates have so far received have been properly audited and
found to be satisfactory. Perhaps, too, that is true.

In the end, however, when all has been said and done, it is up
to the public to see to it that effective control is exerted not
only over the president and vice president-elect, but also over
the legislative bodies, the judiciary and the rest of the state
apparatus in whose hands the well-being of the populace rests.