Wu Shu-chen Gives the Political Donation Law a Slap in the Face

Wu Shu-chen Gives the Political Donation Law a Slap in the Face
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 24, 2009

The Political Donation Law has been stalled in the Legislative Yuan for years. Now, finally, the Control Yuan has made public a list of political contributors. This has subjected the campaign contributions of corporate contributors to Blue and Green political parties and presidential candidates to the bright glare of the sun. Ironically, within 24 hours, Wu Shu-chen made a second revelation. She reportedly blew the whistle on 20 major contributors, who made three billion in campaign contributions. More importantly, Wu Shu-chen's hidden books were never reported to the Control Yuan, making clear her contempt for the law. For all intents and purposes, she gave the Political Donation Law a hard slap in the face.

In fact, ever since Chen's secret overseas money-laundering accounts were revealed last August 14, Chen Shui-bian has used campaign contributions to shield himself from prosecution. From the beginning he has insisted that money transferred overseas was leftover campaign contributions. In response to the Lungtan Corruption scandal, Chen Shui-bian referred to the money he received as "campaign contributions," and disowned all responsibility for it. A law ostensibly intended to make campaign contributions transparent, has become a tool for corruption. Where did our Political Donation Law go wrong?

Since the nineties, in pace with a raised political consciousness, the public has expressed its distaste for money politics. But apart from the Public Servant Property Declaration Act, other bills such as the Sunshine Law have failed to make it through the legislature. It was only in 2004, during President Chen Shui-bian's re-election campaign, that suspicions arose regarding Chen Yu-hao's campaign contributions to Chen Shui-bian. Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen flatly denied, again and again, that they had taken any money from Chen Yu-hao. Chen Shui-bian gave orders that Chen faction members of the Legislative Yuan sponsor a "stringent" Political Donation Law. Wu Shu-chen recently confessed to receiving billions in campaign contributions from conglomerates, many following Chen's "re-election" in 2004. Obviously, Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen never gave the Political Donation Law a second thought. Worse, they turned the Political Donation Law into a fig leaf to cover the Chen family's criminal activities.

Of course, the bosses of financial conglomerates in doubt about asking prices began delivering hundreds of millions to the president's official residence. They even deposited money in Chen's overseas accounts. To call these "campaign contributions" is more than a little far-fetched. Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen, in an attempt to paint others as black as himself, argued that these financial conglomerates gave even more to the KMT, but prosecutors have chosen to prosecute only them! What can we blame, but a Political Donation Law that has great ambitions but little ability.

Republic of China election campaigns, particularly presidential campaigns, are extremely expensive. The Political Donation Law stipulates that individuals may not contribute more than 100,000 NT in any given year. Profit-making enterprises may not contribute more than one million NT. Legislators did not set such stringent standards out of political idealism. In fact the complete lack of stringent standards was one of the preconditions for passage of the Political Donation Law.

In 1974 the United States "Federal Election Campaign Law" established a "Federal Election Commission." Commission members have professional staff and the right to investigate. Only that enables it to investigate false declarations. By contrast, look at our own Political Donation Law. The Control Yuan is charged with investigating campaign contributions. Control Yuan members have the right to investigate. But more than a few public officials have admitted both publicly and privately that the amount they declared is less than half of what they received. But has the Control Yuan investigated or prosecuted a single one of these?

And even if the Control Yuan decided to get tough, what tools does it have at hand? False declarations of campaign contributions by dishonest politicians and political parties, is punishable by a maximum of fine of 1,000,000 NT, approximately 30,000 US. Such a slap on the wrist provides politicians with a reason to lie, thereby breaking the law. Dlections are hotly contested on Taiwan. Therefore politicians have few scruples about fund-raising. Only then can they have access to immense political and economic benefits. After all, no one makes a serious effort to check. And in the event one is unlucky enough to be found out, the fine is a mere 1,000,000 NT. Politicians, know how to read a balance sheet, and have little trouble deciding which way to go.

Politicians are highly adaptable creatures. No matter how airtight the law might be, they will find loopholes, they will find a backdoor. In the painful aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the US decided to pass the "Federal Election Campaign Law." As we can see from this brief history, campaign reform is useless. The law is constantly rewritten. Election expenses increase geometrically. Obama's fund-raising has once again broken previous records.

Therefore, experts who have studied campaign contributions say the key to reform is transparency. Setting ultra-high standards is not as good as conceding that modest campaign contributions are a necessary evil, and adopting more realistic contribution limits. But false declarations must be severely punished. The Political Donation Law must no longer be a hypocritical law, a way for Ah-Bian and Ah-Chen to get off scot-free. These are factors the legislators amending the law must consider.

中時電子報
中國時報 　2009.02.24
社論－吳淑珍狠狠打了政治獻金法一個耳光
本報訊

政治獻金法立法多年後，監察院終於公布政治捐款專戶，讓各大企業捐助藍綠政黨及總統候選人的政治獻金，可以接受陽光的檢驗。諷刺的是，不到二十四小時，吳淑珍第二次陳報狀曝光，據傳共抖出二十位金主、三十億政治獻金；更重要的是，吳淑珍這本黑帳，從未向監察院申報，擺明完全視法律於無物，形同狠狠的打了政治獻金法一個耳光。

事實上，去年八月十四日扁海外洗錢密帳曝光以來，陳水扁就是援引政治獻金為自己辯護；一開始，他表示，這些匯往海外的錢，都是選舉結餘款，面對龍潭案的貪汙事證，陳水扁也以政治獻金推得一乾二淨。一部應該讓政治透明乾淨的法律，最後竟成為貪汙犯的藉口，我們的政治獻金法究竟出了什麼問題？

九○年代以來，隨著民主意識高漲，黑金政治深受民眾詬病，但是除了公職人員財產申報法外，政治獻金法等相關陽光法案，卻遲遲未能完成立法。一直到二○○四年，陳水扁競選總統連任時，面對收受陳由豪政治獻金疑雲，扁、珍不但多次斷然否認曾拿過陳由豪的錢，更在陳水扁命令下，在立法院由扁系立委提出並通過這一部「高標準」的政治獻金法；觀諸吳淑珍近來自承收受財團數十億政治獻金，其中不少是在二○○四年連任後發生，扁、珍心目中不但從無政治獻金法，政治獻金法更淪為掩護扁家犯罪的遮羞布。

當然，有對價嫌疑的金控大老闆紛紛送錢進官邸，動輒上億，甚至匯錢到海外帳戶，硬要說這些錢是政治獻金，未免太牽強。但是，為何扁珍可以振振有詞的說，這些財團送給國民黨更多，天下烏鴉一般黑，卻選擇性只辦他們一家人!我們這一部眼高手低的政治獻金法，難辭其咎。

以台灣選舉、尤其是總統選舉競選經費之龐大，政治獻金法卻規定，個人對參選人每年捐贈總額不得超過十萬元，營利事業不得超過一百萬。立委諸公定下如此嚴格的標準，並非著眼於政治清明的理想，事實上，整部政治獻金法，完全欠缺讓此一高標準實現的條件。

舉例言之，美國一九七四年的《聯邦選舉競選法》修正案中，特別設立「聯邦選舉委員會」，該委員會具調查權及專業幕僚，才可能落實對不實申報的查核；反觀我們的政治獻金法，受理政治獻金之申報機關是監察院，監委具調查權，而且負責公職人員財產申報，但是，自政治獻金法實施以來，不少立委公開私下都曾表示，他們申報的數字，不足實收的二分之一，但可曾見到監察院調查或處罰任何一個案例？

而即使監察院真的決定動大刀懲處，又有何工具可用？不誠實申報政治獻金的政治人物及政黨，只要面對最多一百萬元的行政罰鍰；如此不痛不癢的罰則，形同鼓勵政治人物說謊、進而犯法，因為，以台灣選舉競爭之激烈，政治人物當然寧願無所顧忌的募款，可以獲取龐大的政經利益；反正，不會有人認真去查，真的不幸被查到了，罰鍰不過一百萬。最具經濟理性的政客們，怎麼會不知道如何算這筆帳！

當然，政客是最具適應力的動物，再如何先進的政治獻金法制，他們都可以找到漏洞、繞道而行。美國在水門事件之後痛下決心立法的《聯邦選舉競選法》，就可以看出這一段獻金法制的「改革無用史」，法不斷的訂定，選舉經費也跟著等比級數上升，歐巴馬的募款經費再次破了前人的記錄。

因此，研究政治獻金的專家們建議，改革的核心在陽光及透明。與其定下超高標準防堵，還不如適度的承認政治獻金是必要之惡，採取較務實的捐款上限，但如果不誠實申報，將面臨嚴重的刑責。要讓我們的政治獻金法不再是一部偽善的法律，或成為扁珍脫罪的藉口，這些是立委諸公未來修法必須考慮的方向。