Half measures can make things murky
judicial intent of better informing voter choice through disclosures about electoral bonds (EBs) is obviously welcome. But here's the thing — could it lead to a perverse outcome of driving corporate donations to political parties further underground during the upcoming elections? Corporate donations through EBs were premised upon a layer of anonymity by maintaining uncorrelated lists of donors and recipients. If this correlation is established through additional information provided by issuer of the bonds, SBI, companies face the prospect of loss of reputation, or even litigation.
This makes the unravelling of half-hearted measures to increase transparency over political funding an unfortunate exercise. The effects could be felt during the course of this year's elections if corporate donors were to seek true anonymity over political donations. This could raise the level of cash — especially of the darker-hued variety that was the bane and raison d'etre of demonetisation — chasing ballots.
The Indian voter may, thus, rather ironically, become better informed about political funding in the past but less informed in future.
This does not serve the purpose of improving choice. Even as things stand, the voter is being exposed to conjecture about quid pro quos with the information now available in the public domain about EBs. Extra disclosure will clear the air, but will not offer certainty.
Judicial intervention would be needed to establish cause and effect.
Where India's attempt at shining light on political funding went awry was in its incremental ambition. Half knowledge, as is becoming evident, can be dangerous. One way to go would be to legitimise lobbying, as in the US, and match it with full disclosure of political
