Controversy in Congress over possible return of private funding to political parties.

The Permanent Commission of Congress is about to address one of the most controversial topics in Peruvian politics: the return of corporate financing to political parties. The discussion, scheduled for tomorrow, has sparked intense criticism and diverse opinions, particularly within the Acción Popular party, which has clearly expressed its opposition to this measure. The spokesperson for the party has firmly rejected the proposal to restore private financing from legal entities, emphasizing that "the money of all Peruvians is to strengthen the parties, and not to pay lawyers or advisors to leaders." The context of this discussion dates back to the first vote held on December 27, where a text was approved that could allow private companies to contribute financing to political parties. The initiative received support from 22 legislators, while six opposed it, highlighting a clear division of opinions in the chamber. This fact has reignited the debate on the need for transparency and ethics in Peruvian politics, a topic that has been at the center of public attention for years. Legislator Chávez, in calling for the rejection of the bill, draws on the legacy of former President Fernando Belaunde Terry, who defended politics as a work of selfless service. In this sense, the Acción Popular party argues that private financing could lead to the commodification of politics, where decisions are influenced by the economic interests of companies rather than being oriented towards the common good. The proposal for private financing includes certain modifications aimed at providing guarantees and controls. For example, it establishes that 50% of the public financing received must be allocated to operational expenses, which include hiring personnel and legal advisory services. However, in the event that a conviction is issued against the party or its leaders, the money used for these advisory services must be returned. This clause has generated mixed reactions, being seen by some as an attempt to control potential abuses, but also as a way to justify the legitimacy of certain expenses. The controversy intensifies with the inclusion of a provision that allows contributions or income from private financing by individuals and legal entities, with an annual limit that would increase from 120 to 200 UIT, meaning from S/618,000 to S/1,030,000. This increase in the contribution cap has raised concerns, as it could give more power to companies in financing electoral campaigns, raising the possibility that business interests could dominate the political agenda. Supporters of the measure, such as ComexPerú, argue that the participation of the private sector in politics could create a more robust and diversified financing system, promoting competitiveness and the modernization of parties. However, the opposition contends that this could result in greater corruption and a loss of political parties' autonomy in the face of economic interests. A key aspect of the proposal is the confidentiality of contributions, which will be allowed through bank accounts at the Banco de la Nación, where the identity of contributors will not be revealed. This raises an ethical dilemma, as the lack of transparency can hinder accountability and exacerbate public distrust in politics. The debate over private financing of parties is situated within a broader context in which citizens are demanding more transparent and ethical politics. The rejection of this measure by some sectors reflects a desire to restore trust in institutions, questioning whether it is possible to achieve this in an environment that allows external influences through money. Thus, tomorrow, legislators will face not only the decision to approve or reject this regulation but also the deeper implications it could have on Peruvian politics. The balance seems to be tilting towards the need to strengthen parties through public financing, but the pressure from private interests remains a determining factor in the discussion. The decision they make in the Permanent Commission could mark a milestone in the future of the political system in Peru.