Money, Media and Elections: campaign finance reform in Cyprus.

A while ago, I had the privilege to meet a political campaign professional from Greece, Mr. Dimitris Papangelopoulos, while he was completing a specialized Master's in Washington, DC. We met when he approached me at the embassy while he was writing a reasearch paper on the issue of political campaigning in Cyprus. Due to previous similar studies as well as from past involvement in this process, I was particularly interested in his study and findings. One of his points and observations that caught my attention, both during our discussions and after I read the well-prepared study, was his comments on the absence of transparency in campaign finance. There were no regulations in Cyprus about this.

It was right after the event that I started thinking more seriously about the implications of the lack of regulation, eventhough I knew for years that candidates could receive money from anywhere, and spend as much as they like (i.e. have) in anyway they see fit! Political parties could run companies for profit, invest in private placements, buy stock in the stockmarket and accept donations without being accountable to anyone! Aside from a government subsidy that is transparent in its allocation but not so in its spending, the parliamentary political parties do not receive any other government support.

I also investigated the spending aspect of the subject. One could practically speak of the "commercialization" of election campaigns. Candidates could buy air time, advertisements in print and electronic media, and even covert advertizing in the form of "spontaneus" appearances, interviews, etc. There have been candidates, much like any other product in need for promotion, literally buying their way through a seat in the parliament, a municipality and elsewhere. It seems that someone can almost secure a spot in the "limelight" if she/he has the necessary dough, and is willing to spend it! In turn, "show me the money" becomes a requirement each aspiring politician has to satisfy when approaching the leadership of her/his party in order to become a candidate. In a costly campaign a party may even consider not strongly supporting someone without the resources, no matter how good she/he maybe. Or to put it differently, a party may promote someone who is less competent than someone else because the first one can pay the cover (and even pay for the party as well).

In the past, what used to carry more weight than cash was access to a Mass Medium since there was just one government - run public television and radio broadcasting service in Cyprus and the only other alternative was the printed media, which was – and to some extend still is – highly partisan. But today things have changed. There are Media groups with various mass communication conduits with the public at their disposal such as multiple television and radio channels, magazines, newspapers, websites, production houses, etc. Now, there even media that while disseminating information to the general public, are not staffed by journalists, and cannot be officially called newspapers. There are magazines run by commercial companies, and others that print and distribute newspaper inserts that appear as specialized press, etc. As a result, what matters most now is having the resources to buy the access.

Consequently, campaign costs are now a lot higher, stakes are higher, and therefore who pays "top dollar" has a better chance of a) attracting the attention of the public, b) feeding them the message, and c) getting elected. And with an audience who more and more believes that the degree of public exposure of a candidate is analogous to hers/his credibility (the "I saw it on TV" mentality) electability is less so about positions, issue-command, rhetorical talent and skill, but more so about exposure. In Cyprus, we have seen in the recent past several cases of inadequate candidates who were elected in public office even if they were, for example, clearly unsuitable for the job, otheres who were incapable of putting a sentence together or clearly read their victory speech from a piece of paper in public! We have also seen others eventually pursuing "successful" political careers, just because they were "seen on TV" repeatedly, either as frequent quests in TV shows, radio interviews and through other public exposés. I am not sure whether this is beneficial for the political process as a whole, for the parties themselves, the other politicians and most importantly for the general public, who ends up choosing among the most visible (i.e. the most financially endowed) and not the most competent.

Aside from very specific limitation on political commercials on TV in presidential campaigns, much is still open for the highest beater! And no questions asked! Nobody seems to care about the sources of the funds. Although there were debates on the matter and attempts to introduce legislation, there is still no comprehensive regulation regarding campaign contributions, funding sources, ceilings, diversification, and all those other campaign issues that could, at least, ensure a proper degree of a democratic process. Who pays whom, how and how much for what exactly, is still the subject of anecdotal conversations, rumors and speculation. But despite the academic conversation, democracy suffers the most.