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.