& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Money power behind global polls

Source of money threatens integrity of politics across globe

Cnn Online
The world economy may be bracing for another grim year, but political donors in the United States are breaking out their checkbooks to finance what is expected to be the most expensive presidential electionin American history.
The Center for Responsive Politics
estimates $6 billion will be spent in the U.S. elections by campaigns, political parties and corporations hoping to propel their candidates into the White House and what writer Mark T\vain once called the “best Congress money can buy.”
The projected price tag of the 2012 US election dwarfs that of other nations, but corruption monitors from Transparency International (TI) say it's not just how much will be spent but where the money is coming from that threatens the integrity of politics around the world.
THE UK
While the trajectory for spending in US elections is soaring, total party spending in the 2010 general election in the United Kingdom was actually 26 percent less than in2005.
But despite the fact party spending dropped to $49 million, the absence of limits on the amount individuals or corporations can donate has contributed to the ongoing erosion of public confidence in the political process in the UK, according to one watchdog organization.
“When donors are making contributions exceeding £20,000 ($31,000) -and some are making donations well over £250,000 ($390,000) — it's perfectiy
understandable you don't give away that kind of money without expecting something in return,” Chandu Krishnan, executive director ofTI UK.
In November 2011, a UK advisory body recommended increased public funding as one way to avoid future scandals and limit the influence of big donors in elections, but the three main political parties rejected the proposal.
NORWAY
Krishnan, citing Scandinavia as a model, believes increased public funding would cut down party dependence on large donations and give the election system more credibility.
In Norway, government funding accounted for 74% of political parties' income in 2010, according to Statistics Norway. And unlike in the US, where candidates and their supporters can buy as much television time as they can afford, political ads are banned from television
and radio.
India
Corruption monitors say the lack of public funding in India, the world's largest democracy, has contributed to a staggering influx of under the table corporate contributions to candidates that has undercut the integrity of recent elections.
Intelligence reports received by India's Electoral Commission suggested that upwards of $2 billion in so-called “black money” will be spent to influence the Uttar Pradesh state elections this year, according to Anupama Jha, executive director of TI India.
In the 2009 election in Tamil Nadu, a state with a population roughly the size of France, 33.4 percent of voters received money from candidates' supporters for their vote, according to a poll by India's Centre of Media Studiesand in 2011, voters were lured to the polls with blenders, grinders and other household appliances.
Russia
There’s also a presidential election this year in Russia, where corruption monitors say the issue of big money in politics pales in comparison to the abuse of government resources by the United Russia party of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is again running for president.
While there are no limitations on the amount US political parties can spend on televison ads, broadcast time in Russia is doled out on a limited basis, and is proportionate to the results of the last election.
But as opposition parties prepare ads to maximize a limited amount of television time, nightly news broadcasts on staterun channels are filled with stories of United Russia politicians repairing hospitals, or opening new underground rail stations -- officials bene-fitting politically from initiatives paid for with taxpayer money.
While opposition parties must finance campaign trips around the country during election season, incumbent politicians can campaign during official state-funded trips, according to Panfilova.
Brazil
Another country where big money and elections go hand in hand is Brazil, Latin America's largest country and one of the world's fastest growing economies.
Roughly $2 billion was spent by parties and candidates in the 2010 presidential election, according to Claudio Weber Abramo, executive director of TI Brazil.
Nearly 98 percent of
winner Dilma Rouseff's campaign donations --and 95.5 percent of her main opponent's — came from corporations, says Abramo.
Abramo says corporations donated 99.04 percent of all money spent in Sao Paulo, Brazil's most populous state, during the 2010 electiona reflection mainly of voters' apathy and politicians' failure to form relationships with their constituents.
Nigeria
While political finance watchdogs such as the Center for Responsive Politics monitor the amount of money spent during US elections, a financial adviser for the International Foundation for Electoral Systems says no reliable information exists for how much money was spent during the 2011 presidential election in Nigeria.
While Nigerian law gives the country's election commission the right to set a maximum spending limit for parties, the commission neglected to do so before the 2011 election, according to Magnus Ohman.
While the 2011 elections were hailed as a step forward in Nigeria’s evolution as a young democracy, the lack of restraint on political spending is a worrying development for election monitors.