Debate on political financing in Peru generates polarization and strong criticism.

The discussion about the financing of political parties has taken a new turn in Peru, with the Permanent Commission of Congress preparing for a crucial debate on the possible reinstatement of private financing from companies to political organizations. This issue, which has generated divided opinions in society and the political sphere, will be addressed in a session scheduled for tomorrow. In this context, the Acción Popular caucus has raised its voice to advocate for the rejection of this proposal. The Acción Popular congressman, who has expressed his stance on social media, argues that money from citizens should be used to strengthen political parties, eliminating the possibility of it being used to pay for lawyers or advisors. This statement highlights concerns about how resources are managed within political organizations and the need to ensure transparency in the use of funds. According to the legislator, the political history of Acción Popular is based on the selfless service of its leaders, a legacy that dates back to former president Fernando Belaunde Terry. This debate is not new in Peru, but the recent approval in the first vote of the reinstatement of private financing has revived the controversy. In the last session of the Permanent Commission, 22 legislators supported the proposal while six opposed it, indicating the polarization this issue generates among different political sectors. The absence of abstentions underscores the clarity of positions but also the lack of consensus that could be crucial for political stability. The substitute text that was approved includes a series of amendments aimed at regulating and limiting the use of private funds. One of the most relevant provisions establishes that if the financing is used for legal matters that result in a conviction, the money must be returned. This measure has been seen as an attempt to hold political parties more accountable for the use of resources, although it has also generated criticism regarding its effectiveness. The inclusion of conditions for the use of private financing has created fertile ground for debate. While some legislators and sectors of civil society consider these measures sufficient to ensure transparency, others argue that private financing can lead to conflicts of interest and corruption. The discussion becomes even more complex when considering the impact this could have on the general elections of 2026, where campaign financing is a crucial issue. The new proposed framework also raises the limit on contributions that parties can receive from S/618,000 to S/1'030,000, introducing a new reality in how electoral campaigns are structured in the country. This change has raised concerns about the influence that large companies could have on Peruvian politics, which could distort democratic representation and favor the most powerful economic groups. On the other hand, the introduction of banked contributions through the Bank of the Nation, which will be confidential, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The lack of transparency in political financing is a recurring issue in many countries in the region, and Peru is no exception. The confidentiality of contributors may be perceived as an attempt to hide power relations that could influence political decision-making. The call from Acción Popular for the rejection of this proposal reflects a broader concern in society about the state of ethics in politics. The idea that parties should be financed primarily by the state, rather than relying on corporate donations, has gained traction in many circles. The eventual decision made by the Permanent Commission could mark a milestone in how political campaigns are financed in Peru and, consequently, in the quality of the country's democracy. As the voting moment approaches, public attention is focused on the legislators and how they will respond to this complex issue. The pressure from citizens and civil society organizations could influence the final outcome, highlighting the importance of an informed debate and the need to ensure a fairer and more transparent political system. The position of Acción Popular is just part of a broader discourse calling for more ethical and responsible politics, a goal that will undoubtedly be subject to intense scrutiny in the coming days.