Who pays for Jacob Zuma's helicopter and Helen Zille's billboard? Should political party funding be regulated? Ryan Bubear and Hadlee Simons argue it out…

Ryan Bubear reckons that failing to regulate party funding is like sponsoring a crack addict.

South Africa's persistent failure to regulate the funding of political parties is essentially express permission to promote corruption.

Does this bulldozer really need any more help destroying our already polluted political landscape?

In an ideal world, individuals and corporates donating money to parties would expect nothing in return. But in our world, money changes hands and 'services' are rendered. It would be naive to think anything else. The 'you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours' mentality is rife.

If the process were transparent, however, there would be some hope of foiling — if not preventing — sagas like Oilgate. What do the nameless sponsors and the benefiting parties have to hide? If everything is aboveboard, what’s with the veil of secrecy?

Donating cash to a political party is like handing over R100 to your crack addict cousin, trusting that he will obediently trot down to the corner store and pick out a bunch of flowers for your grandmother, just as you requested. It just won't happen. Your cousin will get high (although not terribly, on just a hundred bucks), your granny’s best vase will remain empty and your wallet will be lighter (stay with me, I’m going somewhere with this, I promise).

Now, if you were impartial to a 'rock' or two yourself, but didn’t have the contacts of your crack-pot cousin, you could supply the cash, get him to make the purchase, take a hit or two and pass it back to him. You (the private funder) would get your buzz without being seen on the street, your cousin (the political party) would get stoned too and the promises to your gran (the beleaguered voter) would be left unfulfilled, and smelling like anything but roses.

Another reason for the funding system to be regulated is to curb the lavish spending of political parties, particularly during campaigning in the months leading up to an election. Before I vote for a party, I want to know who paid for the party-branded helicopters or extravagant television adverts, and why that money wasn't instead used for the very people who need it most.

Each party should have a designated bank account for private funding, registered in that party's name. Every donation made should go into this account and independent auditors should be able to check balances and sources at any time. Admittedly, this alone would not put an end to corruption but at least it would not encourage it.

If each party were to lay their financial cards face-up on the table, the chances of the elections being 'free and fair' would be far greater. Ultimately, it's about removing temptation, since our politicians don't seem to be all that adept at resisting it.

Who you vote for is your secret; who you fund is not.

Hadlee Simons believes that forcing parties to reveal their patrons would open those patrons up to abuse and intimidation.

Political parties are traditionally seen as secretive, all-knowing entities. But under this façade lies a sobering truth — like anybody else, these parties need money to survive. But unlike the man in the street, they're not obliged to disclose their sources, and for good reason.

Picture the scenario of a political party being forced to disclose their donors — an unlikely scenario in today's world. Now picture the ruling party's reaction when they realise that the very company they're considering for a juicy tender is supporting a different political party.

That is the reality that awaits South Africa if donors are to become public. The "if you're not with me, you're against me" philosophy has unfortunately been adopted by the ruling party, as is evident by the fact that almost all jobs within government are given to party members. It is simply naïve to think that making party funding a public affair will lead to an honest and unbiased government. It goes without saying that if donors are to be made public, the political party in power will surely skew towards the companies with the biggest donations.

Some people feel that forcing parties to disclose their donors will result in foul play being exposed for all to see — and who wouldn't want to know how many millions the ANC or DA is receiving?

But knowing the size of a competitor's donation may very well lead to companies pledging increasing amounts in an attempt to outbid the competition. Of course these entities don't donate money out of the goodness of their hearts; but making such bids public will simply spark a silent bidding war, with the winner gaining the most influence. Corruption will not necessarily be eradicated by making this practice public.

Discrimination is another factor that will no doubt arise. Surely Julius Malema will have no qualms about engaging in an anti-Shoprite tirade if it is found that they are funding the ID? One only has to look across the border to Zimbabwe to find out what happens to those who don't support the 'right' party.

A private donation to a party is similar to making your mark next to your party of choice. Both acts signify support for that party, and both are meant to be private. If you were to make funding public, you might as well print a list of voters and their party choices in the local newspaper.

Who do you agree with? Share your thoughts below…

The beggar gauntlet Rebekah Kendal reckons that begging is bad for SA because it fosters a culture of dependency.

Visit our politics page Need the latest political news, features, interviews and profiles? Visit our dedicated page...

Behind closed doors Rebekah Kendal reckons that the real losers in the Percy saga are victims of domestic abuse.