Join our Mailing List

"Canada can, within a positive friendly atmosphere, ask the Chinese government to resolve the Tibetan situation."

Where Does the Money Come From?: Why Tibetan Democracy Needs Campaign Finance Transparency

February 1, 2011

posted Jan 22, 2011 7:10 PM by The Tibetan Political Review [ updated
Jan 24, 2011 7:20 AM ]

By the Editorial Board of The Tibetan Political Review

We are happy to report that there has been progress since our November
2010 editorial, A Call for Campaign Finance Transparency, in which we
We expect that there will be resistance to this proposal among the
candidates. On the other hand, a candidate who embraces campaign finance
transparency as part of his or her platform should be rewarded by the
voters. Additionally, we propose that the Standing Committee of the
Parliament immediately consult with the Election Commission, and pass
legislation mandating campaign finance disclosure effective for the
current election cycle.
First, we have been advised by the Tibetan Election Commission that it
shares many of our concerns on the importance of preventing the negative
influence of hidden money on our democracy. In fact, the Election
Commission informs us that it is working on proposed campaign finance
rules. Unfortunately, those rules will not be ready to present to the
Parliament-in-Exile in time to affect the current 2011 elections. Still,
future elections will be made more transparent, and this is a very
positive development for Tibetan democracy.

In another positive development, all three Kalon Tripa candidates have
made some form of voluntary disclosure regarding their campaign
finances. Below, we examine the pros and cons of all three candidates'
approaches to this issue.

Tenzin Namgyal Tethong

We start with Tethong, who was the first candidate to voluntarily
disclose his campaign finances. He has disclosed US$29,978 raised at
public events for Tibetan communities in San Francisco, Toronto,
Washington DC, Boston, New York, London, and Zurich. Donors are not
listed by name, but the public nature of the fundraising events means
this is not necessary.

Tethong's campaign has also stated some of the places where the funds
will go: travel costs for campaign trips in India and Nepal, the
production and distribution of campaign materials, and support for a
campaign office in Dharamsala.

Regarding travel to date, Tethong’s campaign stated that his travel to
the Zurich and Portland debates was paid by the Tibetan Youth
Association-Europe and the Portland Tibetan Association, respectively.
His travel to Minesota, Madison, Portland, Seattle, Washington DC,
Toronto, Boston, and Amherst was paid for by "his supporters" who
invited him. Tethong also stated that he paid personally for his travel
to Bylakuppe for that debate.

The most important disclosure issue related to Tethong’s accounts is not
the fault of Tethong’s campaign itself, and its resolution must actually
come through strengthening the institutions of Tibetan democracy
generally: In a system currently reliant on voluntary disclosure, the
voters have no assurance of accuracy and completeness. Given Tethong’s
ample public fundraising, we have no reason to suspect that he has any
undisclosed sources of funding. However, the Tibetan voters deserve more
than trust. They deserve verification. That is why we re-emphasize our
belief that the Election Commission must be given the power to audit
candidates’ financial disclosures for accuracy and completeness.

Another gap in Tethong’s full disclosure -– one that he can and should
fix himself -– relates to contributions in-kind. The value of such
donations should be disclosed since they are equivalent to cash. Also,
the identity of the in-kind donors should be disclosed (with an obvious
exception for minimal values) because these donations were not given in
public view.

Lastly, it would be helpful to see a much more detailed breakdown of
campaign expenses, which is the other side of the ledger from campaign
income. Currently we know that the funds will go toward travel, campaign
materials, and Tethong’s Dharamsala campaign office, but there is no
further detail. Candidates in countries such as the United States must
show both sides of the ledger, and the same should apply to our
candidates as well.

Tashi Wangdi

Wangdi was the second candidate to voluntarily disclose his campaign
finances. His campaign sent TPR two spreadsheets so far detailing the
income from a "town hall" event held for the Tibetan community in New
York (US$5,969), and some non-public contributions ($2,800). As with
Tethong, Wangdi does not provide donors’ names for his fundraising
event, but again this is fine because it was public. However, Wangdi
also does not disclose the donors’ identities for the non-public
contributions. This is an issue that should be addressed by the campaign.

Wangdi's spreadsheet also showed costs for the town hall event ($2,486),
as well as costs for printing press releases and banners ($110) and for
running ads in Phayul ($528). The campaign also sent a total of $2,970
to two named individuals in India for “campaign expenses.” We applaud
Wangdi for giving a relatively detailed breakdown of both the income and
expense side of the ledger. Having said that, we also call on Wangdi to
elaborate on the vague “campaign expenses” item.

The Wangdi campaign also stated that the cost of its website, and of
printing posters and fliers during the primary election, was borne by
"supporters." As with Tethong, contributions in-kind should be public.
The value of such contributions should be disclosed, as well as the
donors’ identities (since the contributions were not given in public).

Also, as with Tethong, the biggest disclosure shortfall is one that only
the Parliament-in-Exile can fix: i.e. pass a law providing for an
independent audit of full campaign accounts.

Lobsang Sangay

Sangay’s disclosure is qualitatively different than that of the other
two candidates, and more complicated to address. He stated in a letter
to supporters that he has found it “unnecessary” to raise funds. He
asserted that his international travel is paid for by “organizations
that organize debates and other forums related to the election,” and
campaign materials are paid for by “friends and supporters.” He also
said that his expenses in India are “relatively small and affordable.”

While we of course take Sangay at his word, we must note that his
statement leaves many open questions that are not good for democracy. He
has not actually stated whether he has received funds, only saying that
it has been unnecessary to raise funds. He implies -- but does not
actually say -- that he himself has paid the “small and affordable”
expenses in India. He does not identify the “friends” who paid for
campaign materials, or disclosed the monetary value of this support. And
he is vague on the “organizations” and “forums” that have paid his
travel costs.

We do not like to make such lawyerly parsing of statements, and we do
not question Sangay’s truthfulness. But we trust that Sangay will agree
with us that Tibetan democracy is not strengthened by allowing a
precedent for such a vague disclosure.

Sangay should therefore state unequivocally whether or not he or his
campaign has received any campaign funds, and if so from whom. This is
too important an issue for Tibetan democracy to allow a future
candidate, who may be less trustworthy than Sangay, to hide undisclosed
donors behind vague words. Again, this is ultimately an imperative that
independent auditing by the Election Commission can best enforce.

Like the other two candidates, Sangay should also disclose the value of
donated travel and other in-kind contributions, and the names of all
such donors. It is completely acceptable for a campaign to accept
in-kind contributions, but there must be transparency for the public to
know who gives.

Sangay should also address an apparent conflict between his vague
statement above on international travel expenses, and a different
explanation that he gave to RFA. During a recent RFA interview [click
here to listen at 27:35], Sangay stated that his international travels
are paid for by Harvard, also commenting that Harvard is the wealthiest
school in the world. Based on this, it appears that Harvard may pay for
Sangay to fly to India to attend events related to his work, and then he
takes side trips around India to campaign. Our concern with Sangay's
approach is two-fold, beyond the apparent incongruity with his other

First, this approach potentially creates an unethical conflict of
interests. According to Harvard's ethics rules, staff may not "design or
modify their research and teaching activities in ways that significantly
and inappropriately benefit their external activities." Given the
impressive extent of Sangay’s campaigning in India, it is important for
him to assure voters that this activity did not influence the planning
of his official Harvard travel, in violation of Harvard’s ethics rules.

Second, Sangay’s discussion of his funding from “wealthy” Harvard risks
confusing voters and violating another Harvard ethical rule. This rule
states that staff must "assure that the Harvard name is used in a manner
that does not imply University endorsement" for outside activities.
Sangay would surely not intentionally suggest that his candidacy is
endorsed by Harvard. However, there is a risk that some Tibetan voters
in India might misinterpret Sangay's statement to mean that his
candidacy is in fact backed by a prestigious and wealthy Western
"jindak" (sponsor). Sangay has an ethical responsibility to prevent this.


As we previously wrote, “political contributions can be perfectly
legitimate practices, but only when the public can see who is pulling
the strings." So far, two candidates have made good but imperfect
disclosures that require independent verification and, in the case of
the second candidate, information on non-public donors’ identities. The
third candidate has stated that fundraising has been “unnecessary,”
leaving some important open questions. The third candidate has also made
conflicting statements about how he pays for his international travel,
which also raises two ethical issues as stated above.

We believe that these mixed results show the limits of a system of
campaign finance transparency based on voluntary disclosure and lacking
independent verification. The only way to ensure full, comprehensive,
and verified disclosure is if the Parliament-in-Exile empowers the
Election Commission by passing legislation to audit candidates’ required
full financial disclosures.

Is such a step necessary? We believe so. It is a good sign that our
Tibetan democracy has advanced to a point where candidates are raising
funds and actively campaigning for votes. However, our young democracy
remains fragile, and our society still faces serious external and
internal threats. In order to protect the sanctity, legitimacy, and
transparency of our voting process, all candidates, voters, and
lawmakers should join together on campaign finance transparency, an
issue that goes to the heart of our democracy.
CTC National Office 1425 René-Lévesque Blvd West, 3rd Floor, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3G 1T7
T: (514) 487-0665
Developed by plank