Political funding system is relatively transparent but compromised in US

It may be the oldest democracy in the world, but it is also the most expensive democracy in the world.

- Prashant Jha

If you want to contest presidential or Congressional elections in America, be ready to be a fundraiser par excellence; have an accounts, audit and legal team attuned with complex disclosure requirements to meet transparency norms; and possess a network of rich supporters who can spend unlimited amounts to build your profile and attack your opponents through ostensibly independent but effectively aligned groups called Super Political Action Committees or Super PACS.

In any democracy, the question of political funding requires a complex balancing act between multiple principles of transparency, accountability, liberty, and the need for a relatively level-playing field. It is here that the Indian institutional stakeholders and American institutional stakeholders-particularly the judiciary-have drawn from their own history and understanding of how political finance aligns, or does not align, with the constitutional guarantees of citizens to participate in the political process and come up with different answers.

What is striking is that while in the Indian case, the legislature (prodded by the executive) has pushed for changes that give parties more leeway to raise money and the judiciary has halted it (as in the case of the electoral bonds on Thursday), in America, the legislature, at key moments, has sought to impose restrictions on donations and expenditure, only to have the judiciary overturn it to create a more laizze-faire system.