The financing of political campaigns without accountability can lead to corruption and it often does. This is the reason why there are campaign finance laws. In many countries, these laws are extensive and are enforced. Several election cycles ago in Guyana the issue of the reform of campaign finance laws was raised by Mr. Christopher Ram. He got nowhere for his pains but has doggedly stayed on course. Others have since weighed in on the issue, including Transparency International Guyana and David Hinds of the WPA. At one time the AFC promised campaign finance reform but that party appears not to have been able to persuade its senior coalition partner, APNU, to support such a project. Latterly, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, has made some serious, supportive comments on campaign finance reform. But there are still issues as to whether our political culture will sustain it.
At the basic level, there are too fundamental objectives of campaign finance reform, namely, to know who makes the contribution and to limit the amount of the contribution. These ensure, firstly, that the public would know the identity of the contributor and, secondly, the size of the contribution is not large enough to purchase influence. It is believed that public knowledge of these matters would tend to limit the potential for corruption. It is routine in Guyana, and many other Caribbean countries, that those who make significant contributions to losing parties suffer discrimination or are fearful that they would do so. Political discrimination is rife in Guyana and is frequently on public display for all to see. Therefore, it is believed that if there is a requirement for disclosure of names, contributions will dry up. If the amounts which can be contributed are limited, it is certain that political parties would not be able to raise enough funds to contest elections. These are the essential reasons why our major political parties have not been keen on campaign finance reform.