Your browser does not support JavaScript!
Multiple-choice, choose multiple answers
Read the text and answer the question by selecting all the correct responses. More than one response is correct.
Given the record of our political class, the proposal to give tax rebates for political donations will likely meet a similar fate. Instead of cleaning up political life then, the bill runs the risk of being a godsend for fly-by-night middlemen and fixers, and unscrupulous businessmen. The other objection to the bill is a more traditional one, namely that rather than private donations, the solution is in state funding of parties. This not only ensures that there is some sense of proportion and fairness in the quantum of funding available to different parties, but also that funding does not become a means of determining the political agenda. Private funding, in this argument, is an unacceptable form of political lobbying which promotes the specific demands of donors apart from generally favoring conservative, mainstream parties, squeezing out those representing minority voices. Whatever its merits, the most serious obstacle to this kind of reasoning comes from the precarious nature of public finance in the country. At a time when the Indian state is already hard-pressed to find resources for education, health, and other social security activities, can there be a case for it to burden itself with a new category of expenses? In purely economic terms too, the proposed tax breaks do not augur well for the savings sector; and this when the sagging savings graph in the economy is already a matter of increasing anxiety.
Which demands according to the writer of the passage deserve better attention than the political funds?