Goodbye to all that?

A senator told me, in a hushed tone at a party, that he spent P130 million for his campaign last year. That’s P20 million lower than the average amount quoted to me by several other senatorial candidates. But then the senator has a prominent surname. Imagine how much candidates with less name recall needed.

For candidates perceived to be sure winners, campaign donations can cover the bulk of the expenditures. But there are limits to the generosity even of the country’s wealthiest, especially since they are approached for contributions not just by a single candidate but by several and sometimes by a political party for its entire slate.

So even popular candidates usually must fork out their own money. In 2004, the buzz was that one of the leading presidential contenders spent P20 million of his hard-earned life savings because campaign donations were pocketed by his politically savvy friend.

Losers have no choice but to lick their wounds and charge defeat to experience.

Winners, on the other hand, can choose to recover their expenses and charge the bill, with tax or interest, to Juan and Juana de la Cruz.

Before the party poopers in the Supreme Court (SC) scrapped the Priority Development Assistance Fund, the congressional pork barrel was a reliable way for lawmakers to recoup campaign expenses – if not through outright skimming of the money, as we have learned in the PDAF scandal, then through fat commissions given by favored contractors for pork-funded pet projects.

On top of the PDAF was the Disbursement Acceleration Program, dangled by the executive for Congress’ cooperation. For the administration and its party, the DAP also helped repay political debts and buy support.

Now everyone must say goodbye to all this, because of those meanies in the SC. Judiciary funds, you’re toast.

*   *   *

With three members in detention and a fourth on leave for cancer, I asked Sen. Sonny Angara to sum up the mood in the Senate at the start of its second regular session. His reply: “Businesslike.”

It’s not business as usual, of course, as the 16th Congress tries to follow the SC ruling in crafting the 2015 General Appropriations Act (GAA).

Because the Constitution gives the task of budget approval to Congress – a power that DAP circumvented – lawmakers still get to propose pet projects for funding in the 2015 national appropriation.

The proposed projects will be selected through voting by the budget panels of both chambers for inclusion in the GAA.

Once approved, each project will be identified in the GAA, with specific costs, which the public can scrutinize for funding releases and implementation.

Gone are the individual lump sum appropriations – P200 million per senator, and P30-35 million (or double, when Malacañang needed something badly from Congress) per House member – that lawmakers used to allocate with full discretion to pet projects awarded to favored contractors after the GAA had been approved, with no need to bare expenditure details to the public.

Without specific lump sum allocations, there are no limits to the amount of projects that each lawmaker can propose for funding, except that Congress can’t go higher than what the executive has proposed.

Since suggested projects are voted upon, the numbers will tend to favor those in power, putting the minority at a disadvantage.

In theory, ensuring equitable fund allocations even for political opponents of those in power was one of the rationales for the pork barrel. In practice, Malacañang could and did sit on fund releases for its opponents, so the loss of the PDAF should not be a big deal for the opposition.

*   *   *

Lawmakers are bowing to the SC on the PDAF, but Malacañang and its allies are not about to give up on impounding “savings” even before the year is over.

As requested by President Aquino, lawmakers are moving to pass either a law or a joint resolution, which (they say) has the power of a law, that will allow him to continue the DAP-like impounding of savings even midway through the fiscal year.

One congressman has filed a bill seeking “savings” at every quarter. This is reportedly also an idea of the Department of Budget and Management. Why don’t we just do away with Congress’ role in the GAA and hand over everything to Malacañang and the DBM?

The impounding power may be fine for someone like P-Noy, but can all those around him be fully trusted with billions in forced savings? And what if his successor is afflicted with kleptomania?

The SC has paved the way for sweeping changes in the budget system that should promote good governance. P-Noy should support this instead of whining about the loss of his DAP. If his DAP projects are so important, they should be included in the regular GAA.

Crying is therapeutic – men should do it more often. It can save them from hypertension and cardiac problems. The sensitive toughie – the guy who cries at his daughter’s wedding, for example – plays well in the movies.

But for a leader, it’s better to be moved to tears on national TV by other people’s misery rather than your own: the death of thousands overnight in Tacloban, for example, or of a young man from fraternity hazing.

I prefer Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago laughing off her fourth-stage cancer to a president getting teary-eyed over his sagging approval ratings.

If we want a bit of family lore, it was reported that Corazon Aquino refused to shed a tear in public over the assassination of her husband Ninoy because she didn’t want to give the Marcos dictatorship the pleasure of seeing her cry.

There’s speculation that P-Noy came close to tears during his penultimate State of the Nation Address not because of emotional distress but due to a coughing fit after more than an hour of non-stop talking without a nicotine break.

P-Noy can still serve as a model of intestinal fortitude in confronting challenges. The country has enough problems, from traffic gridlocks to large-scale corruption, that can reduce the public to tears.

In these troubled times, we don’t need someone crying over spilled DAP milk and openly contemplating his mortality. What we need is strong leadership.