Debate in Peru over political financing generates division and ethical concerns.

The discussion on the financing of political parties in Peru has gained new momentum with the upcoming session of the Permanent Commission, scheduled for tomorrow. At the center of the debate is the proposal aimed at reinstating private financing from companies to political organizations, a measure that has generated a wide spectrum of opinions and positions in the political arena. From the Acción Popular party, its spokesperson has expressed a categorical rejection of this initiative, emphasizing that money from the state should strengthen parties and not fund operational expenses or fees for advisors or lawyers. The legislator stresses that politics should be viewed as an altruistic endeavor, in line with the legacy of former president Fernando Belaunde Terry, who promoted a vision of selfless service in Peruvian politics. It is important to remember that on December 27, this proposal was approved in its first vote by the Permanent Commission, receiving the support of 22 legislators, while only six opposed it. This vote reflected the growing division in Congress regarding the issue of political financing, where some see private sector participation as a way to democratize resources, while others warn of the risk of corruption and increased business influence in politics. Among the modifications included in the substitute text is a provision that would require the return of funds in the event of a conviction against party officials who receive financing for legal advice. This aspect has drawn criticism for its ambiguity and the possibility that it could allow for the irresponsible use of funds, which could undermine the credibility of the parties in the eyes of the public. On the other hand, it is also proposed that up to 50% of the direct public financing received can be allocated to operational expenses, as well as the acquisition of necessary goods for political activities. This has raised concerns among some factions, who fear that this could lead to the misuse of resources intended for politics. An additional point that has been the subject of debate is the increase in the cap on private contributions to political parties from 120 UIT to 200 UIT, which represents a significant rise in the amount of money companies can contribute. This change has been defended by some sectors, such as ComexPerú, which argue that the injection of private capital can be beneficial for strengthening parties and their operational capacity. However, concerns about transparency and ethics in political financing persist. Critics of this measure warn that the return of private financing could open the doors to corruption, where business interests may disproportionately influence political decisions. This has led many to question whether the public interest is truly being prioritized or if a small group of businessmen is being favored. An additional aspect included in the proposal is the possibility of making banked contributions through the Banco de la Nación, which would be managed confidentially. This measure has sparked further debate about transparency in the financing process of the parties, as confidentiality could hinder the tracking of money flows and their origins. Meanwhile, public opinion remains divided on this issue, and many hope that the Permanent Commission will take into account concerns about corruption and abuse of power before making a final decision. Politics should reflect the needs of citizens and not be a space where private interests dominate the stage. As tomorrow's session approaches, attention is focused on how this debate will unfold and what decisions will be made regarding party financing. Peru's political history reminds us that the decisions made today can have a lasting impact on how politics is conducted in the country. The lingering question is whether the chosen path will reinforce democracy or put it at risk.