Controversy over the approval of private financing for political parties in Peru.

The recent approval in a second vote of the return of corporate financing to political parties has sparked a broad debate among legislators, business leaders, and civil society. The Permanent Commission of Congress, with a vote of 14 in favor, 8 against, and 2 abstentions, has decided to move forward with a regulation that allows private companies to contribute financially to political groups. This step opens a new chapter in electoral financing in Peru, generating both expectations and criticisms. The approval of the substitute text has been defended by some legislators as a measure that promotes pluralism and democratic competition. Fernando Rospigliosi, president of the Constitution Commission, argued that the new regulatory framework will allow parties to obtain additional resources, which is essential, especially in a context where public financing may not be sufficient to cover all the operational needs of these organizations. According to Rospigliosi, the inclusion of private financing can encourage greater participation of civil society in politics, fostering a stronger connection between various social actors and party projects. However, the controversial measure has faced strong opposition, particularly from political figures like Ruth Luque, who criticizes this decision as an "assault on the Constitution." Luque emphasizes that financing political parties with private resources could lead to the improper use of these funds, especially in the case of parties whose members are facing legal investigations. This concern becomes even more relevant when considering the recent context of corruption that has marked Peruvian politics. The regulation also establishes mechanisms for transparency and accountability, which, according to its defenders, is a necessary step to mitigate the risks of corruption and the influence of private interests on the public agenda. Despite these safeguards, many critics remain skeptical about the effectiveness of such mechanisms, questioning how they will be implemented and monitored in practice. A key aspect of the new legislation is the obligation to return financing used for legal advice in the event that the party or its leaders are judicially convicted. This provision has generated intense debate among legislators, as some argue that it may deter companies from financing parties suspected of illegal activities. On the other hand, others see this measure as a way to ensure that taxpayer money is not used to defend those who have committed crimes. Additionally, a limit has been established on private contributions, which would increase from 120 UIT to 200 UIT (approximately S/1,030,000), allowing companies to make more significant contributions to political parties. While proponents of this measure argue that larger contributions can strengthen the operational capacity of parties, opponents warn of the risk that this practice may favor parties with stronger business ties, potentially distorting electoral competition. The inclusion of banked and confidential contributions through the Bank of the Nation has also been a point of debate. This article of the regulation seeks to guarantee the discretion of contributions, which, for some, could open the door to a lack of transparency and the possibility that money from companies with particular interests could influence political decisions undetected. In the midst of this controversy, groups like ComexPerú have expressed their support for the measure, arguing that private financing can be a valuable tool for fostering a more robust democracy. However, this support is not unanimous, and many civil society organizations have expressed concern about the potential for abuses in the use of these funds. The future of political financing in Peru, therefore, remains surrounded by uncertainties. As the proposal is sent to the government for enactment, voices for and against will continue to rise in public debate. The opportunity for more dynamic and diversified financing presents itself, but so does the risk of erosion of political integrity if adequate controls are not established and transparency in the use of these resources is not ensured. The discussion about financing political parties is undoubtedly a topic that affects all citizens. Establishing a balance between ensuring sufficient resources for the functioning of groups and maintaining the integrity of the political system will be key in the coming months. The way these new regulations are implemented and monitored will define the course of Peruvian politics in a context where public trust in institutions has been severely affected.