[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Charu, now we are speaking in one voice:

	Sanjeev Sabhlok[SMTP:sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu] wrote:
>	* Let all donations (limitless) be above board
>	* Let all donations be fully documented and publicly available	
>		for inspection on the internet
>	* Let citizens groups take up the responsibility of monitoring 
>		closely the actions of the politicians and businesses
>		and swiftly come down if there are cases of quid pro
>		quo detected. Let decisions be taken after due
>		process and due consideration of all sides, and only
>		on pure merit.

I endorse point 2 but not the first [unlimited corporate and individual
contributions to political parties], and I don't understand the
last[citizen groups monitoring and enforcing lack of quid-pro-quo]

I may be misinterpreting what you're saying, [correct me if I'm wrong]
but you seem to be saying that if no quid-pro-quo exists, corporations
will fund elections out of the goodness of their hearts or out of a
sense of social responsibility. I find this hard to believe.

Where do these monitoring citizen's groups come from?
I suppose you could argue that if they were government run they would be
subject to subversion and corruption, though I don't see how to avoid
the same thing in the context of independent bodies- I could see
corporate sponsored organizations set up to rubber stamp what suited
corporate interests. I just had the thought of picking these monitors
analogous to the way juries are picked here, but I need to chew on this.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: india_policy@cine.net
Rules, Procedures, Archives:     http://www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/