Approval of corporate financing to political parties generates controversy in Peru.

The recent approval by the Permanent Commission of a text that reinstates the financing of companies to political parties has generated extensive debate in Peruvian society. This decision, which was finalized in a second vote, was supported by 14 legislators, while 8 voted against it and 2 abstained. The text will now be sent to the Government, where it is expected to be promulgated or, alternatively, observations may be raised that could return it to Parliament. The controversy began with the intervention of Congresswoman Ruth Luque, who questioned the legality of the approval, stating that it contradicts a ruling by the Constitutional Court which establishes that reforms to the law on political organizations must be treated as organic law. According to Luque, this decision represents a "violation of the Constitution" and the possibility that public financing could end up being used for the legal defense of politicians under investigation or prosecution. Despite the criticism, the president of the Constitutional Commission, Fernando Rospigliosi, defended the measure. In his remarks, he argued that the inclusion of private financing will not only guarantee pluralism and democratic competition but also allow political organizations to access resources that they could not obtain solely through public financing. Rospigliosi emphasized that this change encourages greater participation from civil society and the private sector in political life, creating a stronger connection between social actors and party projects. One of the most controversial points of the new text is the inclusion of a mechanism for the return of funds. It establishes that if a political party or its representatives receive a final or enforceable sentence, they must return the money that has been used for their legal advice. This measure aims to mitigate the risk of public resources being used for the defense of individuals involved in illegal activities, although it has faced criticism regarding its effectiveness. Additionally, the new regulatory framework allows parties to receive private contributions from natural and legal persons, with a limit of up to 200 Tax Units (UIT) per year, which amounts to approximately S/1,030,000. This represents a significant increase compared to the previous cap of 120 UIT. The measure has been somewhat welcomed by business sectors, who believe that greater financing could lead to a more diverse and robust political offering. However, the inclusion of confidentiality in banked contributions has raised concerns among some sectors. The regulation states that the names of the contributors will not be disclosed, which could open the door to opacity and potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that this lack of transparency could allow private interests to influence the political agenda without detection. The discussion about the role of business financing in politics is not new in Peru. Historically, there has been a tug-of-war between the need for resources for campaigns and the pursuit of transparency and ethics in political financing. As the 2026 electoral cycle approaches, the implementation of this regulation will be subject to public scrutiny and could mark a turning point in how political organizations are financed. The response of the public to this regulation will be crucial. While some sectors view the return of private financing as a means to enhance democracy, others fear that this measure will favor those parties that already have strong ties in the business sector, putting smaller and less resourceful groups at a disadvantage. Ultimately, the debate over political party financing in Peru has taken a new direction, and civil society, political parties, and economic actors must be attentive to the effects this legislation may have on the political landscape of the country. The search for a balance between adequate financing and transparency will remain a central challenge in the coming months.