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.