Elections are good for business rather than for the people. In a three-year election cycle, political campaigns invest heavily in traditional media (newspapers, radio, TV), on one hand, and on digital platforms (websites, internet), on the other. All quantum spending goes to political advertisements in the hundreds of millions of pesos by each winning or losing senatorial candidate. Only a tiny fraction goes to campaign materials and campaign staff.

Republic Act 7166 requires a “full, true, itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures within 30 days after the polls.” Published news reports disclose the rates of “cash and in-kind contributions” to every candidate and their actual rates of spending. Such epic sums that went to “political advertising,” filling quad media coffers to the brim. Expenses for staff, campaign materials, and their distribution are too marginal. In short, traditional media advertising and digital platforms raked in awesome profits.

Why not identify the patrons and benefactors who contributed as high as P170 million and as low as P36 million in the midterm senatorial derby? On average, “third-party groups” contributed P120 million for every senatorial hopeful. Unbelievable observations can be made in relation to the actual amounts paid for political ads from the contributions they received. Neophyte Marcoleta was the sole exception who received “zero.” Interestingly, eight out of 12 spent over P100 million.

One can draw significant correlations between and among three main variables, namely, a) spending, b) third-party contributions, c) expenses for advertisements. They can reveal intriguing observations, revelations, or implications. If numbers don’t lie, all the 12 senators who won spent in general no more than the amounts of contributions they received, with the exception of Villar and Lapid, who spent P10 million and P4 million more, respectively, as well as Sotto, who spent P61 million from contributions received of P36 million.

The other exception was Marcoleta, who received zero contributions but spent P113 million, P83 of which went for political ads. Quite the opposite, Lacson, who received P119 million in contributions, spent only P19 million overall with P15 million spent for campaign ads; it appearing that he kept P100 million unused or intact — call it what you will.

Even more thought-provoking for the four phenomenal losers, one of which was Pacquiao whose overall spending was P29 million where P25 million represented contributions of which P24 million went for advertisements.

Ben Tulfo, Revilla, and Binay spent practically all the contributions they received at P74 million, P125 million, and P161 million, respectively. Unorthodoxly, Ping on winning spent only P19 million to be a senator-returning; while Pacquiao on the losing side spent only P29 million. It’s beyond belief that Marcoleta spent P113 million with zero contributions where P105 went to advertisements.

Few more implications can be drawn, as follows:

First, Ping is telling the whole world that he can be reelected as a senator with only P19 million in expenses. Pacquiao apparently had the same thought as Ping in spending only P29 million in the vain hope that he would be reelected, except it failed. He spent only P4 million on top of the P25 million in contributions he received, and if such a measly out-of-pocket amount could get him re-elected, why indeed would he spend more.

Second, for a newcomer to the Senate, Marcoleta exemplified that one has to spend a little over P100 million to be elected senator with zero contributions. For the rest, mostly reelectionists, they seriously understood that to win, one has to go full blast in spending all the contributions one received.

Ranged against 70 million voters and 42,000 barangays to saturate, how true is it that a P120-million average expenditure could make one a senator?

If there are givers or contributors, so are there takers or recipients. Ironically, this gives birth to corruption at the intersection — a quid pro quo.