More openness in party financing

JAMAICANS WHO believe that strong opposition parties are good for democracy will welcome Mark Golding’s claims about the health of the People’s National Party (PNP) finances and the party’s promise to return to publishing audited accounts.

Implicit in Mr Golding’s pledge, at a forum with this newspaper’s editors and reporters, was a critical nod to transparency. It added salience to the Opposition leader’s, and his party’s, insistence in Parliament earlier in the week that the Government disclose all the companies and individuals who financed the public relations element of Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith’s campaign earlier in the year to become the secretary general of the Commonwealth.

When Robert Nesta Morgan, the de facto information minister, wasn’t forthcoming with all the information, Mr Golding quipped: “He is smiling and laughing like it’s a joke.”

Transparency in government, or in political parties from which they spring, is indeed serious business. Which is why Mr Golding and the PNP can’t stop at merely poking the Government for partisan gain over the Johnson Smith matter, or at just publishing the PNP’S accounts – something the party first did more than a decade ago, but quickly abandoned doing.

GO THE WHOLE HOG

To be credible, Mr Golding must go the whole hog on transparency. He mustn’t only tell Jamaicans how much money the PNP raised and spent, and what its assets and liabilities are, but must reveal who put money in its coffers. Mr Golding should also propose legislation – which he might draft himself and table in the House as a private member’s bill – to make the public provision of that information mandatory for political parties.

In the meantime, Mr Golding and the PNP should insist that the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) fulfil specific obligations under the law, as well as craft regulations, as is allowed by it, to enhance transparency.

The PNP is a registered political party. If the Government made the budgetary allocation as the legislation allows, the PNP would be eligible for taxpayers’ money to help defray its annual expenses. For this, it would be required to lodge annual audited accounts with the ECJ, as well as reports, showing that it adheres to its constitution and regularly elects and installs officers.

But registered political parties already have to meet most of these obligations. Indeed, under the 2014 amendment of the Representation of the People Act, registered political parties are required, each April, to file with the ECJ “an annual financial report prepared by a registered public accountant”, as well as a “statement showing the sources of the funds of the political party”.

Unlike the eligibility requirement for state funding, the law doesn’t specifically say that these accounts are to be audited. It, however, at section 52Y, requires the ECJ to “maintain a register of political parties, which should contain the names of political parties, their symbols, officers, authorised representatives and such other information as may be prescribed”.

PUBLIC INSPECTION

This register is to be open for public inspection at the ECJ’S offices, but the law also requires that it “shall also be available for inspection on a website maintained by the commission”. There is perhaps such a website containing the requisite information. This newspaper has been unable to find it.

In today’s digital environment, online access to this information should be the norm – and easy. In his new transparency thrust, Mr Golding might enquire into the status of the digital version of the register and propose, if it isn’t already the case, his party’s accounts, including its sources of funds, be published in it.

Further, existing campaign finance legislation requires during the reporting period (six months before an election is constitutionally due, or the date on which an election is announced, and up to six months after the vote) that parties or donors have to report contributions of J$250,000 or higher. This, however, isn’t public information. It should be. Mr Golding should make the case for it. If he doesn’t, his ridiculing of Mr Morgan in Parliament over the PR bill affair rings hollow.