Controversy in Congress over proposal for private funding of political parties.

The Permanent Commission of the Congress of the Republic is scheduled to meet tomorrow, where various projects and reports on the agenda will be discussed. One of the most controversial topics to be addressed is the second vote on the proposal that seeks to reinstate the financing of political parties by private companies. This return has sparked widespread debate, particularly within Acción Popular, where there has been strong opposition to this measure. The spokesperson for the Acción Popular caucus has expressed clear opposition to the proposal, arguing that public funds should be used to strengthen the structure of political parties rather than to pay the fees of lawyers or advisors, or even the salaries of leaders. His position reflects a call for responsibility in the use of resources allocated to politics, emphasizing that access to financing should be an act of selfless service. The memory of Acción Popular's political trajectory, founded by former president Fernando Belaúnde Terry, plays a fundamental role in this discussion. The vision of politics as a selfless service is a legacy that many within the caucus wish to protect. For them, accepting private financing would contradict this ethical principle and could open the door to greater corruption and lack of transparency in Peruvian politics. This is not the first time this topic has been addressed in Congress. In the first vote on December 27, the text allowing private financing was approved, receiving the support of 22 legislators, while only 6 opposed it. This result has raised concerns among various sectors of society, who fear the implications that such financing could have on the independence of political parties and their relationship with the private sector. Among the proposed modifications in the substitute text is a provision that requires parties to return funds in case their executives or representatives are convicted by a final ruling. This measure, although well-intentioned, has been criticized, as some legislators believe it is not enough to guarantee transparency and accountability in the use of private money. Additionally, it has been established that up to 50% of the public financing that parties receive can be allocated to ordinary operational expenses, which includes the acquisition of goods and services necessary for their operations. This provision has sparked debate about the justification of expenses that will be considered "essential" to political activity, and whether this could lead to abuses in the use of resources. In this context, the Acción Popular caucus has chosen to reject the report, advocating for an approach that prioritizes public financing as a way to ensure equal opportunities among political parties and reduce the influence of private money in politics. The concern is that corporate financing could lead to a power imbalance in the political sphere, favoring those parties that can attract more financial support. On the other hand, some business organizations, such as ComexPerú, have expressed their support for the measure, arguing that private sector involvement in party financing can be beneficial for promoting greater responsibility and transparency in public management. However, the question that lingers is whether this participation can truly be selfless or if it will inevitably bring about conflicts of interest. The fact that the limit for private contributions has been raised to S/ 1,030,000 has also generated unease. This increase could result in a few contributors having disproportionate control over the parties, potentially compromising their independence and their ability to act in the interest of the common good. As the date of the vote in the Permanent Commission approaches, positions are becoming polarized. While some advocate for modernization and the inclusion of the private sector in political financing, others insist that the way forward is to strengthen public financing and ensure that politics remains a selfless service that serves all Peruvians. The resolution of this dilemma will have a significant impact on the future of politics in Peru and will likely continue to generate debate in the coming months.