The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

FREE National Movement chairman Duane Sands and Southern Shores candidate Denalee Penn-Mackey have confirmed that the party has distributed vouchers, raising questions about whether both major political groups are attempting to influence voters with gifts as the general election approaches.

“If you want to be absolutely transparent, then every single political organisation has been purchasing vouchers from Super Value,” Dr Sands said yesterday. “And both the PLP and the FNM, if you were to talk to Supervalue, they've noticed that the sales have gone up, so there's nothing unique to any particular political organisation.”

“If you follow the Election Act, it's very clear that an inducement intended to get somebody to vote is against the law, but there's nothing that says that somebody with food insecurity can't be given a meal or access to the items to prepare a meal, so, it really depends on what the intent is.”

Describing the situation as “a slippery slope” with “the potential for abuse,” Dr Sands said he would still assist people in need.

“If you come to me today and say that you have no food in your house, I would do the best that I can in order to assist,” he said, adding that he did not know the value or number of vouchers obtained by the party.

He emphasised the distinction between privately funded assistance and state-backed programmes. The Davis administration has yet to address claims by Chris Lleida, chief executive officer of Premier Importers, that the government — not the PLP — paid for more than $200k in gift vouchers to his company that were distributed and signed by PLP election candidates and officials.

“One can be seen to have the possibility of nuance. The other is a clear-cut violation of the law where public funds are being used for political reasons,” Dr Sands said, adding that the issue highlights the need for broader campaign finance reform.

Ms Penn-Mackey confirmed she has been distributing vouchers in her constituency within the past week, saying the effort is funded from her personal resources and should not be compared to the use of public funds.

“That, along with my whole campaign, is run by my own personal money, so I don't see how what the PLP has done as it relates to the money you're spending from the public treasury,” she said. “How does that tie into what I'm doing personally?”

She said the vouchers are valued at about $100.

“I shouldn't even be answering these questions, because really and truly, I'm a person who's always been doing and giving back to the community,” she said. And I've always had my own personal space and my personal funding, so what is the issue? How could that tie into what the government is doing?”

“We give out food and vouchers every day. Is that vote buying? The people have a food problem where people come and they said, listen, we need some vouchers. I have no grocery in my house, so when we give them a voucher, is that vote buying?”

Rejecting any suggestion of inconsistency, she added: “It's not a double standard because if it's coming from the public treasury and my vouchers are coming from my personal account, that’s not a double standard at all.”

FNM leader Michael Pintard said there is no issue with helping those in need, but warned that using public funds during an election period risks undermining public confidence, particularly when assistance appears to be newly introduced or intensified.

“If somebody is in need, I don't think you take an issue with the government, at least certainly me personally, if somebody is hungry they need food assistance, the government is not providing it, you ordinarily provide it, and this is what you've been doing, I think you have an obligation to help people who need help,” he said. “I mean, that's a general rule that certainly I've lived by all along in and out of political season. If somebody needs help, you help them.”

He acknowledged that the timing of money or material assistance invites warranted suspicion.

“It allows others, others who look on, to presume that it's politically motivated and I'm saying that there are a number of constituencies where persons know, beyond the shadow of doubt their people weren't about doing, running any social assistance programme, have not provided a social safety net, and all of a sudden, they are offering them around election time,” he said. “That's what they're saying about the government right now. All of a sudden, you just realise that my house was leaking, and you have not been involved in the last four and a half years. You came and did an assessment. Nothing happened until just now.”

Under the Parliamentary Elections Act, it is an offence to offer, give or provide money, gifts or other benefits to a voter to influence how they vote.