Comments by "M Shastri" (@libshastra) on "Anonymous no more: What Supreme Court said in electoral bonds judgment u0026 why it matters" video.

Despite the optimism, the judgement won't materially change anything with regards to Political funding. Why you might wonder? The judgement doesn't change the fundamentals of political financing. To illustrate what I mean, consider the following. Today, a Tata might donate money to a party thru SBI and it's gaurantee of privacy, tomorrow after the judgement Tata will do the same thing with several layers of shell companies. It's essentially the same system that worked under the UPA.
22
@Ashwyn123 it was far worse prior to electoral bonds. Electoral bonds cleaned up a lot of black money and made donations taxable.
18
@deflexion3677 yes we can tell the future by tracking what has changed in the present. Sorry to disappoint you, the judgement doesn't change the fundamentals of Political financing. It actually reverts it back to the days of UPA - instead of directly funding parties under the guarantee of privacy, you now have to do the same thing through layers of shell companies.
15
@tapemaj I disagree. They have used shell companies to fund political campaigns and pay haftas. The transactions done by them through shell companies (during UPA) are actually all available in the open if you know where to look for it. Sometimes the same transactions takes the form stock manipulation of small cap firms. IMO, invariably the judgement has made things worse - the guarantee of privacy allowed Tatas/Birlas etc. to be more direct about their political funding instead of resorting masking it's transactions.
10
@Silence.580bc it is not. It doesn't change anything and can be argued makes things worse. Now doners will be subject to harassment from political parties.
10
They do need to change it - Judiciary is one thing that's driving investors away and Collegium has failed us miserably - just look at case pendency.
6
@Purpleavacodo to be fair to him, in the previous CTC (check the comments) Shekarji did say he is sending reporters to cover the situation there. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. But nonetheless, keep pushing for better journalism.
4
@Silence.580bc please pick up a dictionary and look up the meaning of harassment. I don't think you understand what that word means.
4
@japanijoota6190 Govt doesn't sit at Courthouses providing instructions to judges to indefinitely adjourn cases. Judges decide to adjourn the cases ad nausem. Case pendency is beyond Govt.
3
@gururajnarer9469 kinda yes. But the point is to change the structure of incentives and gear them towards better outcomes/away from bad outcomes. The judgement skews it towards the older system of shell companies - so materially worse outcome. Electoral bonds is a half measure, it needs further improvement.
2
@LostinMango do you have anything to say beyond calling people you disagree with a paid shill of the BJP?
2
That's actually a good way to look at it. I would prefer something that preserves privacy of donors and maintain transparency. Both can be achieved to a reasonable extent. Sadly, SC has opened up harassment of donors with it's judgement.
2
Don't be lazy. Make that mandate stronger and aim higher. Modi says 400, our aim should be 450.
1
@manjulashanmugasundaram706 CPIM (the petitioner) is interested in Chinese subsidiaries for the sake of the country - sounds very believable. This case was all about ensuring an avenue to blackmail donors.
1
@ThePrintIndia essentially you’re saying the Supreme Court is just cosmetic and a regression.
1
@ThePrintIndia it actually makes things harder for Tax dept. Yesterday companies directly bought bonds, today, the same company is now routing them through Maritius - that’s months of extra paperwork that nobody asked for. Also harassment of businesses has already started. Today Congress in Karnataka has started harassment Infosys for land they legitimately bought claiming they did not create enough jobs. SC judgement has already started reenabling the old harassment based campaign funding.
1
Sangh's expenses/donations are not counted.
1