| Image via Picryl
I would not say that many of us, who are vocal in seeking meaningful change and quick to criticize the shortcomings or transgressions of others we see as perpetuating the culture of corruption and poverty, are like hypocrites. I believe our advocacy is sincere — the same sincerity in our outrage over the nefarious acts of those who exploit our people. The problem is not hypocrisy. Instead, it is either a lot of hot air or shocking naivety.
Because I can sense the sincerity, I must conclude that naivety is the bigger reason genuine change—despite how many of us desire it—will not likely happen. Building from scratch is easier than straightening an already crooked structure. From corruption to integrity, patronage to good governance, we have become united in demanding change.
However, that change will not happen until our efforts to correct the situation become as powerful and intense as those who work to preserve the status quo or even worsen it. It is the part where many of us would rather close our eyes—unwilling to confront what the bad guys do and what the good guys must do even better if we are to have a fighting chance.
It costs a lot of money to get one’s message across to thousands, let alone millions, of voters. And while many complain about the same old tired names and faces dominating the ballots, those familiar figures keep spending massive amounts of resources to remind voters they are running constantly. Whether we like it or not, that is how elections work — and how they have always worked. I am not talking about vote-buying. Vote-buying is a crime, and we must continue to condemn it. The Comelec and civil society should combine their resources to monitor and prevent it closely. But beyond vote-buying, election-related expenses are not only inevitable — they are necessary.
A serious candidate needs tens of thousands of volunteers working close to full-time during a 60- or 90-day campaign. If there aren’t enough volunteers, a network of election workers must be organized and financially sustained. Whether volunteers or paid staff, these workers cannot deliver the candidate’s message without election paraphernalia. Posters, streamers, T-shirts, leaflets, calendars, and brochures — millions of them for a senatorial run — must flood communities, along with radio, TV, and social media ads. Along with a small staff, the candidate must frequently travel across thousands of barangays — by car, plane, or boat — all of which come with steep costs.
Even without vote-buying, how can a good, honest candidate with a solid service record expect to win against wildly popular or well-funded rivals — especially when the latter’s skillsets are nowhere near what the job demands? It can happen — but only as an exception, when it should be the rule that public servants possess both the ethical and technical competence demanded by law.
“It is not enough to want change. We must fund change. We must build the machinery to overpower the system we often decry. And if we can embrace this mission with passion and even a little fun along the way, then maybe, just maybe, the exceptions can finally become the rule.”
There are legal limits to campaign spending, but many candidates spend billions of pesos—often long before the official campaign period begins. Given how many exceptions have been made over the years, I sometimes wonder if Comelec is serious about enforcing these limits.
Yet here we are again, with the campaign period for the 2025 elections already underway — the same sky-high spending limits, the same scarcity of funds for good candidates, and the same fragmented field of too many aspirants, most of whom have no chance of winning but refuse to unite behind more viable options.
Despite these discouraging realities, we cannot resign ourselves to helplessness. If we truly want change, we must walk our talk — not just scream for reform, but sacrifice for reform.
The most practical — though not easy — way forward is to tap into the 10 million pink votes of the 2022 presidential elections. If each of those 10 million voters contributed ₱1,000 — or whatever they could afford — we could raise ₱10 billion to help fund the campaigns of good candidates. Those who cannot afford money can give in kind through volunteerism and hard work.
Election day is often the most expensive day for campaign participants. The network must ensure that its most sympathetic voters get proper assistance locating their precincts. It must maintain a vigilant presence in polling places, guarding the vote count. It must accompany the ballot boxes to their next legal destinations if necessary.
The point is simple: we cannot keep moaning that our good candidates lack resources when we are not doing enough to ensure they have enough — or even more than enough. If we genuinely want good people to win, we must be willing to match the sacrifices of those who fight to keep things the way they are.
It is not enough to want change. We must fund change. We must build the machinery to overpower the system we often decry. And if we can embrace this mission with passion and even a little fun along the way, then maybe, just maybe, the exceptions can finally become the rule.
If we walk our talk.
