tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post82385833050263472..comments2023-09-21T16:17:51.838+05:30Comments on Law and Other Things: Money Power in ElectionsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09348738084817273397noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15602189.post-39327198294890194502008-06-15T10:59:00.000+05:302008-06-15T10:59:00.000+05:30How did the CSDS calculate how much is being spent...How did the CSDS calculate how much is being spent by each candidate? There is money the candidate, his party and his supporters spend; the last is sometimes independent of the candidate. There is also the question of what the ground situation is before a particular candidate begins his/her campaign, i.e., whether the general mood of the electorate supported him/her or his/her party or not. Besides, candidates usually target particular areas for material incentives – for example, a middle-class neighborhood filled with professionals is unlikely to be offered all the booze, saris and cricket sets. Does the study indicate that spending money does not alter this existing reality at all or more precisely, in a tight race, does money not help to swing the few additional votes necessary to make the difference? Even visibility is perhaps relative and cannot be dissociated from the spending question. If two candidates are spending crores, the third, even if exceeding the limit but still lagging behind in overall spending may simply not have the kind of visibility necessary to make an impact. <BR/><BR/>I doubt prosecuting P.G.R.Sindhia will achieve anything. At the most, others may become more cautious in speaking truth to the media in such matters. More broadly, do spending limits help at all? As JP Stevens said a while ago (I think), money, like water, will always find a way to flow. Is allowing unlimited spending with a push towards transparency a better idea than trying to control amounts? <BR/><BR/>Also, if the EC bans all hoardings, posters, loudspeakers, etc. how can candidates get any kind of exposure/visibility at all unless they are veteran politicians/movie stars/assorted celebrities whom the public has already come to know something about? Many a time, one knows little about the candidate’s biography; all that one is aware of is his/her affiliation to a particular party. If candidates are denied the means to get their message across, how can they successfully influence those sections of the voting public who are not enamored of money /other forms of bribe? Is this not perversely incentivizing candidates to spend heavily on those sections of the populace who, in their view, may be bought over through such means?Dilip Raohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18294894305584371011noreply@blogger.com