Kapil Sibal Reveals How Electoral Bonds Were A Scheme To Fund the BJP Big Time

Summary

In a heated debate, Mr. Cil, a former law minister and current parliament member, discusses the recent judgment declaring electoral bonds unconstitutional. He argues that the bonds were not about transparency but a means for corporates to fund the BJP, potentially leading to quid pro quo. The conversation touches on the rampant scale of cash and carry politics, the need for electoral reforms, and the implications of the judgment on political funding transparency.

Takeaways

• 📜 The discussion revolves around the Electoral Bond scheme in India, which has been declared unconstitutional, and its implications on transparency in political funding.
• 💼 The speaker, Mr. Cil, argues that the Electoral Bond scheme was not designed to eliminate cash in politics but to enrich the ruling party, BJP, through corporate funding.
• 🏦 It is suggested that the scheme allowed for corporates to give money to the BJP without disclosure, potentially leading to a 'quid pro quo' situation where favors are exchanged for funding.
• 💡 Mr. Cil proposes a solution where corporate funding for elections is transparent, with the Election Commission distributing funds to parties proportionally based on their parliamentary strength.
• 🚫 The fear expressed is that without electoral reforms, cash and carry politics could worsen, especially if large donations are not properly regulated.
• 🤔 There is a debate about whether the Electoral Bond scheme was intended to bring transparency or was a means to favor the ruling party financially.
• 📉 Mr. Cil claims that the amendments to the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act were designed to allow loss-making companies to contribute to the BJP without tax implications or disclosure.
• 🔍 The Supreme Court's judgment is highlighted as a call for transparency, with the expectation that contributions above a certain amount will now be disclosed.
• 💰 The speaker alleges that the BJP has amassed a significant amount of funds through the Electoral Bond scheme, creating an uneven playing field for other parties.
• 🗳️ Concerns are raised about the potential misuse of the scheme to target opposition parties while protecting the ruling party from scrutiny.
• 🏁 The interview concludes with the speaker expressing satisfaction over the court's decision but cautioning that further action is needed to ensure fair elections and prevent political corruption.

Q & A

What is the main concern raised by the guest about the Electoral Bond scheme?

The guest is concerned that the Electoral Bond scheme could lead to a resurgence of 'cash and carry' politics and create an uneven playing field due to the lack of electoral reforms and transparency.

What does the guest argue about the current state of 'cash and carry' politics in the country?

The guest argues that 'cash and carry' politics is already rampant and is not necessarily tied to cash transactions, but rather to the influence of corporate funding in politics.

According to the guest, what is the actual purpose of the Electoral Bond scheme?

The guest believes that the Electoral Bond scheme is not about elections but rather about enriching the party in power and creating a bond between the corporate sector and the ruling party.

What is the guest's view on the spending limit for an MP and an MLA during an election?

The guest mentions that an MP can spend a maximum of 95 lakhs and an MLA can spend a maximum of 45 lakhs during an election, emphasizing that the large sums of money received through electoral bonds cannot be spent in cash.

What solution does the guest propose to make politics cleaner in the context of electoral funding?

The guest suggests that corporates should fund elections, and the Election Commission of India should distribute the funds equally among parties in power, ensuring transparency and preventing any single party from being targeted.

How does the guest respond to the argument that the BJP received a disproportionate share of electoral bonds because it is the largest party?

The guest argues that the disproportionate share received by the BJP is due to the corporate sector's desire to bond with the party in power and not necessarily because of the party's size or ruling status.

What is the guest's opinion on the potential impact of making corporate donations transparent?

The guest believes that making corporate donations transparent could lead to more corporate funding for the opposition if the fear of disclosure is removed, but also expresses concern about potential misuse of this transparency by the party in power.

What does the guest claim about the amendments made to the Companies Act and their implications?

The guest claims that the amendments allowed even loss-making companies to contribute unlimited amounts to political parties, which was intended to favor the ruling party through opaque funding mechanisms.

What is the guest's stance on the role of the corporate sector in funding political parties?

The guest is critical of the corporate sector's role in funding political parties, suggesting that it leads to a conflict of interest and potential corruption, with the corporate sector seeking favors in return for their funding.

How does the guest view the potential outcomes of the Supreme Court's judgment on electoral bonds?

The guest is skeptical about the effectiveness of the judgment in curbing corruption, fearing that it may be used to target opposition parties while the ruling party continues to benefit from undisclosed corporate funding.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Debate on Electoral Bonds and Cash Politics

In this segment, the guest, Mr. Cil, a former law minister and current member of parliament, discusses the implications of a recent judgment on electoral bonds. The conversation revolves around the fear that without electoral reforms, cash politics could intensify. Mr. Cil argues that cash and carry politics are already rampant and that electoral bonds, which were declared unconstitutional, do not address the issue of cash in politics. Instead, he suggests that these bonds are a means for corporate entities to bond with the ruling party, enriching the party's resources for activities unrelated to elections. He also refutes the notion that the bonds ensure a level playing field in elections, stating that they create an unfair advantage for the ruling party due to the substantial funding they can attract.

05:01

💼 Corporate Funding and Political Bias

This paragraph delves into the relationship between corporate funding and political parties, particularly the BJP. Mr. Cal suggests that the corporate sector is wary of disclosing their contributions due to potential backlash. He argues that the amendments to the Companies Act and the Income Tax Act were designed to favor the BJP, allowing for unlimited contributions from even loss-making companies and exempting these contributions from tax disclosure. Mr. Cal claims that the intent behind the electoral bond scheme was to ensure substantial corporate funding for the BJP, rather than to eliminate cash in politics. The discussion also touches on the potential for quid pro quo relationships between corporate donors and the ruling party, suggesting that transparency in funding could expose such arrangements.

10:01

📊 Electoral Reforms and the Impact of Judicial Ruling

In the final paragraph, the focus shifts to the broader issue of electoral reforms and the impact of the recent judicial ruling on the electoral bond scheme. Mr. Cal expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of the ruling in curbing corruption or ensuring transparency, as he believes it will not prevent quid pro quo arrangements. He proposes a solution where corporate funding for elections is channeled through the Election Commission of India and distributed equally among parties in power, regardless of the number of seats they hold. This, he believes, would prevent targeting of opposition parties and ensure a more level playing field. The conversation concludes with Mr. Cal expressing concern that the ruling may be used to target opposition parties while protecting those in power.

Keywords

💡Cash and Carry Politics

This term refers to the practice of exchanging political favors or decisions for money, often in a corrupt or unethical manner. In the script, it is mentioned as a prevalent issue in the current political landscape, where money is used to influence political outcomes.

💡Electoral Bonds

Electoral bonds are financial instruments used in India for funding political parties. The script discusses how these bonds have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, raising concerns about their role in creating an uneven playing field in elections by allowing anonymous donations from corporations.

💡Supreme Court Judgment

This refers to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India that declared electoral bonds unconstitutional. The script highlights this judgment as historic, enhancing the voters' right to know but also raising fears about the potential increase in corrupt political practices.

💡Transparency

Transparency in this context refers to the clear and open disclosure of political funding sources. The script discusses the lack of transparency in the electoral bonds system, where corporate donors' identities are not disclosed, leading to concerns about corruption and undue influence on political parties.

💡Corporate Funding

Corporate funding refers to money provided by corporations to political parties. The script discusses how electoral bonds have allowed corporations to funnel large amounts of money to the ruling party, often in exchange for political favors, thus raising concerns about corruption and fairness in elections.

💡Quid Pro Quo

Quid Pro Quo means a favor or advantage granted in return for something. In the script, it is used to describe the implicit understanding that corporate donations to political parties are often made with the expectation of receiving favorable treatment in return.

💡Non-level Playing Field

This term describes an unfair advantage in a competition, where one side has significantly more resources or support than the other. The script uses it to describe the political landscape where the ruling party, supported by large corporate donations, has a significant advantage over opposition parties.

💡State Funding of Elections

State funding refers to the government providing financial resources to political parties for election campaigns. The script suggests that corporate funding could be regulated through a system where the Election Commission collects funds from corporations and distributes them equally among all parties, thereby promoting fairness.

💡Income Tax Amendment

This refers to changes in the tax laws that allow companies to contribute unlimited amounts to political parties without having to disclose it as part of their income. The script discusses how this amendment was part of a broader strategy to funnel corporate money to the ruling party.

💡Representation of the People Act

This is a law in India that governs the conduct of elections and the regulation of political parties. The script mentions amendments to this act that exempt large donations through electoral bonds from being disclosed, raising concerns about transparency and the influence of money in politics.

Highlights

Historic judgment on enhancing voters' right to know and concerns over the return of cash and carry politics without electoral reforms.

Discussion on the assumption of no cash and carry politics currently and the potential for it to worsen without electoral bonds.

Cash and Carry politics happening rampantly and its irrelevance to the elimination of cash, as per the Supreme Court judgment.

Electoral bonds being a misnomer, as they are not directly related to elections but rather to corporate bonding with the ruling party.

The disproportionate share of electoral bonds received by the BJP due to its position as the country's largest party.

The possibility of quid pro quo when corporates fund the political party in power.

The increase in BJP's funding through electoral bonds post the scheme's implementation.

Concerns about the transparency of electoral bonds and the potential for corruption.

The need for electoral reforms to ensure a level playing field in politics.

Proposal for corporate sector funding of elections through the Election Commission for equal distribution among parties.

The fear of corporates disclosing their names when funding political parties and the implications for opposition parties.

The assumption that the electoral bond scheme was designed to encourage corporate funding by check.

The amendments made to the Companies Act and Income Tax Act to facilitate corporate funding of the BJP.

The potential for the Electoral Bond scheme to be used for targeting opposition parties rather than promoting transparency.

The expectation that disclosures from the electoral bond scheme will expose quid pro quo arrangements.

Concerns over the control of the Enforcement Directorate and its impact on the fairness of the electoral bond disclosures.

The conclusion that the judgment on electoral bonds being unconstitutional is a significant victory for transparency advocates.

Transcripts

our first guest tonight is someone who

appeared in this uh major case senior

Advocate former law Minister and still a

member of parliament couple Cil is

joining me I appreciate uh you joining

us Mr Cil most legal observers are

calling it a historic

judgment enhancing the voters right to

know but the fear is that cash and carry

politics could be back in the absence of

electoral reforms that the recipe in a

way could be even worse now that

electoral bonds have been declared

unconstitutional well two responses to

that number one uh is it your assumption

that there is no cash and carry politics

nowadays when you when you when you when

you bring people from other parties and

uh induct them in your party do you

think they they are paid any by by check

for doing that no but that's exactly it

the cash will be that's exactly

so it'll get worse it'll get worse in

the absence of electoral bonds let let

me answer let me if you if you if you if

you just let me answer yes you know be a

little patient yes right so I said

number one Cash and Carry politics is

happening at a rampant scale rampant

scale even today so this is nothing to

do with cash and carry and it's not

something that I say it's what the

Supreme Court has said in its judgment

that this has nothing to do with

elimination of cash right and why have

they said so because this money is given

by check and with this check money it

has nothing to do with elections

remember this when a member of

parliament fights an election the

maximum he can spend is 95 lakhs when an

MLA fights an election the maximum he

can spend his 45 lakhs now he explains

that in the course of his election to

the officers of the election commission

now this money that they got and it's

over

6,566 cres since 2008 18 is white money

they can't spend it in cash so this is

white money which they used for their

party what does that mean they use this

for building their offices they use this

for building the RSS offices they use

this for having this connectivity

Network all over India this is to enrich

the party this has nothing to do with

elections in fact electoral bonds is a

misnomer because this has nothing to do

with elections it's something to do with

the bonding of the corporate sector with

the Govern with with with the BJP that's

all that it is so where do you on what

assumption do you say that this

eliminates cash in fact what it does is

it enriches the party to do what it

likes and it's a non-level playing field

and therefore free and fair elections is

not possible in this country with this

kind of money no I I spoke to a a BJP

functionary who said that look the BJP

may have got a disproportionate share of

electoral uh bonds but that's because

the BJP is the country's largest party

is the ruling party uh corporates will

give Monies to parties that are most

likely to win elections was the argument

being made so you know when you throw at

numbers when you let them give so what's

the benefit you believe of today's

judgment we have uh so when when big

corporates give money to the political

party in power they ultimately do it and

the the court also said that possibility

there's a possibility of a quid proo so

when we know which corporates has given

money to the BJP we'll find out what the

quit proo is this is pure corruption

nothing short of that and the Prime

Minister keeps on saying where are the

scams of the BJP where are the scams of

the BJP here is a scam that stares you

in the face and you say that no scams

have been disc discovered the rest of

course are under the carpet yet to be

discovered fact of the matter is this

has nothing to do with elections this

has nothing to do with cash it is

something to ensure that the BJP has so

much money remember in 2017 18 BJP got a

contribution of 210 crores when the

scheme was implemented in

201819 they got immediately a

contribution of

1,450 crores and in 201920 when the Lo

SAA took place it was

2555 cres how could any political party

match the kind of money that they made

through these electoral bonds no the the

political the corporates gave money

through electoral bonds because they

were hopeful that these uh as a result

their identity would not be disclosed

one of the reasons that corporates have

feared giving money especially to the

opposition is that the moment their

identity is disclosed they could be

targeted now the fear some have is the

opposition will have even fewer sources

of funding because the moment you made

it now let's assume that you have a new

system where the amounts are disclosed

more corporate will give it to the

opposition

if one second when a member incidentally

corporates have have given to state

governments where the opposition is in

power under this very scheme yes now the

point that I'm making to you is the

following corporates are afraid are

afraid that when they give the money

their names will be disclosed their

entities will be disclosed why should

they be afraid if they want to openly

support a party they should openly

support that party and say we want to

give money to this party but the fact of

the matter is the a corporate sector

will give money to the Congress it will

give money to another Poli itical party

and they'll give disproportionate money

to the BJP right because the BJP is the

center and they need favors from the

political party on a daily basis so this

is the bonding of the corporate sector

with the political party in power it's

nothing to do with electoral bonds yes

sir but the point Mr Cal is that when

let's assume you were in the UPA

government the assumption is the UPA

also got a disproportionate share of

money because you were in par corporates

will give money through check or through

electoral bonds to the the party in part

we didn't have a scheme like that no but

my point we didn't I'm sorry sir if you

have a scheme sir my limited point to

you is this the real question is the

real elephant in the room is electoral

reforms in the absence of electoral

reforms yes electoral bonds needed to be

transparent no doubt about that I'm

asking you what's the solution do you

really believe this will make our

politics in some way a little bit more

cleaner Raj

put me in government and I'll give you

the solution let me give you one

solution let the corporate sector fund

elections right and the money that is

collected by the election commission of

India should be distributed all through

the State Bank should be distributed in

equal proportion to the parties in power

in Parliament so everybody is funded and

nobody can be targeted no you're going

back you're going back to some kind of a

state funding for going back to some

kind of state funding when you say that

no not State funding corporate funding

again corate don't understand what I'm

saying one second if you fing on the Bas

of proportion it's not State funding if

the BJP gets 350 seats and the

opposition gets 100 does the BJP get

three times more money or not yes

yes that's right that and rightly so

because they got more seats and then

nobody can be targeted I'm giving you a

solution you want a solution I'm giving

you a solution mhm but the problem is

you don't want that solution you want to

enrich yourself mhm and that's the

problem and remember I mean may I just

say this to you because you you are you

are an entity uh you're a a channel

which is funded ultimately by by

entities and and you know you know

Industries is is in control of these

channels so what happens is the

corporate sector funds the BJP the BJP

returns that funds in some way through

form of of advertisements to the very

Channel which has funded the BJP so you

remember this this is very this is a

very serious issue and let's not make a

mockery and make an argument that no no

no this will increase use of cash as if

there is no cash happening what

incidentally I want to ask you this is

nothing to do with cash this is white

funding and what they let them show that

they used it in the election they'll

never be able to show

it Mr s it has nothing to do with the

election please first you you clarify to

me that assumption okay Mr Cal you've

said that there is a scam here there

will be corporates who will say look

when the Electoral Bond scheme was

devised by your friend the late Arun

jley it was devised to try and bring

transparency or encourage corporates to

give money no no just a minute to give

money by check it was designed to give

encourage corporates to give money by

check as it turned out the system was

opaque and led perhaps to many many to

believe many of us to believe that it

was heavily biased in favor of the

government now the scheme is being

scrapped in your view in your view Mr

Simple I wanted to know specifically

what according to you is the scam

involved the scam is complete and I'll

tell you why when amendments were

carried out in the companies act prior

to this uh before the Amendments took

place the law was that any company which

is making a profit sh can contribute up

to 7 and a half% of its average profit

in the last 3 years to the political

party no problem now they they changed

all that and said that even a loss

making company can contribute as much as

it likes to the political party in power

and the 7 and a half cap limit percent

cap was done away with so you could

contribute any amount of money right

what do you think this was done for the

purposes of ensuring that there is no

cash or do you think it was done for the

purposes of ensuring that corporate

sector funds the BJP big time because

they were in power I'm just giving you

one example and so there was then an

income tax amendment to the income tax

act saying that you don't have to

disclose it as part of your income so

you don't pay tax on it and number two

they amended the representation of

people act saying that because it is

over 20 20 20,000 rupees the you don't

have to tell the election Commissioners

to who funded it if I give a check of

20,000 rupees today I can uh to a

political party

and do don't do it through the Electoral

bond process that 20,000 rupes will be

disclosed by the election commission it

will come on their website I'll have to

show who gave who gave the money but

this was all done to have the corporate

sector fund the BJP let's not make no

bones about it that was the intent of

the scheme the scheme was not to get rid

of cash as you are saying but that's an

assumption that you are Mak without

making without any basis it was a scheme

to fund the BJP and they were successful

in amassing 6,000

6566 crores during this period of time

since 2018 okay can I and and yet you

are asking me questions that the

Assumption was to clean up the system

okay I want to therefore ask you in

conclusion Mr sial what next all the

disclosures are to be made uh uh SBI has

to give it to the election commission

which has to put it on their website do

you believe this will expose the quid

proos that you believe are at the heart

of this scheme are you confident of that

of course it has to happen because

nobody I that's the that's in fact a

comment that the Supreme Court has made

in its judgment that nobody no you see

less than 20,000 rupees there's no

question of any quit proo MH above

20,000 rupees non-electoral bonds no

question of quit proo but when there are

electoral bonds where the contributions

are 2 cres 3 cres 5 cres 10 cres 15 cres

obviously you can make a phone call can

get access to the minister you can get

an easy meeting you can get you know put

so you're telling me it's obvious I mean

I you know we are not we we not babes in

the wood we are not babes in the wood

that we don't know what this is all

about okay so you're confident that as a

result of these disclosures the various

quit Pro over the last 5 years will come

out and therefore you believe that's the

real value in a way of this judgment am

I

correct no but they may well come out

but the Ed will not do nothing about it

because it happens to be quick proo of

the party in power and I'm afraid they

will go against those those opposition

governments where they may they may

allege and equit proo and get the Ed

after them so therefore what's going to

happen is long as the

Ed uh is not controlled as long as this

pmla and the disaster which which which

which has resulted in the powers of the

under the PML of the Ed unless that is

dealt with I think that we will have

another uh you know we this this

judgment will be used in fact for just

the for for targeting again the

opposition people let's leave it there

let's wait and see how that plays out

but for now you have reason to be

satisfied that uh your battle in a way

to try and make the Electoral Bond

system uh more transparent and indeed as

the court has now ruled unconstitutional

you won that big battle thank you very

much couple sible for joining

us