Swarup Says: Effect of money on elections

Swaroop Sampat

Speaking of which, the recent U. S. A. election and fuss about spending money. As the campaign for the 2024 presidential election progresses, Kamala Harris faces several financial challenges in the campaign. This involved a $20 million debt and a struggle over where to get the dollars to pay staff and other workers. Since Kamala Harris replaced Joe Biden at the top of the Democratic ticket, her campaign has raised an astonishing $1 billion. The publicity featured a 516-foot-wide reflection of Harris's face on the highly attractive Las Vegas Sphere. The cost of this high-tech advertisement was $45,0000 a day. A campaign's willingness to invest heavily to see this ad has become a hallmark of today's big-spending elections that make big claims and promises. Money power has the same influence in India as it has in American elections. Financial resources play a crucial role in determining political outcomes. Based on the Maharashtra state elections, it can be said that the influence of money on Indian elections is more visible than ever before. Parties not only bid for votes, but also for funds to support election campaigns. Maharashtra being the richest and most populous state has often created a trend that has reverberated across the country. Election campaigns in Maharashtra became more and more expensive with each election – from massive rallies and media campaigns to social media ads and extensive use of data-driven strategies. Broadens the operation of money in elections in India. Electoral bonds are a highly debated practice. Introduced in 2018, the bond allows people and corporations to donate large sums of money to political parties without anyone knowing. Proponents argue that electoral bonds reduce reliance on illegal funding, while critics argue that they create a system in which wealthy corporations have unlimited influence. The issue of transparency around campaign finance in India was recently raised. When the Supreme Court questioned the constitutional validity of electoral bonds, it sought stricter rules and more disclosure. The court has directed the State Bank of India to disclose the details of donations made through these bonds, but the lack of transparency of donors is a matter of concern. U. Unlike S. where Political Action Committees (PACs) must disclose contributions, Indian elections allow the names of bond issuers to be kept private. This means that voters are left in the dark about who can influence policy decisions, especially in elections to the state of Maharashtra. The words of Justice Louis Brandes, 'We can have democracy in a country or we can hand over wealth in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both,' shed a deep light on India's present electoral picture. Smaller parties are sidelined because they don't have much financial backing. An amendment to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) that allows foreign corporate entities to fund Indian parties without significant transparency has intensified concerns about external influence on India's democracy. These expenses affect the results of elections. Research shows that there is a direct correlation between election spending and success rates. High spending on media, technology and voter outreach gives well-funded parties an edge, creating a playing field in which smaller, less-funded parties find it difficult to compete. For instance, comprehensive data-driven campaigns allow key parties to create micro-targeting. Voters of Maharashtra, maximum engagement and vote conversion. As a result, political competition becomes less about ideas and policies and more about resources and strategic spending. The consequences of such high spending go beyond elections. Dependent on corporate donations risks creating a government that cares more about the interests of the wealthy than the public welfare. Policies can be influenced by donors who expect favorable legislation in return for their support, shifting priorities from development and social justice to corporate profits. This undermines the principles of democracy, especially in a state like Maharashtra, where millions of people from diverse economic backgrounds look to their government to address important issues like farmer welfare, urban infrastructure and rural development. In both India and America, the question remains, what is the meaning of democracy if financial capacity alone determines success or failure in elections? This question becomes more present when the election process of Maharashtra is over and the results are awaited. As political parties gear up for one of India's most anticipated state elections, voters need to ask themselves whether the democracy they envision is one where only the voices of the rich are heard. Both America and India find themselves on a path in which democratic integrity is in the balance. This is a timely reminder of Justice Brandeis' warning – if democracy is to be sustained, ways must be found to limit the influence of wealth in politics. It should be ensured that every citizen has an equal voice in shaping the country's future regardless of financial status.}