Thousand-fold funding advantage for ‘yes’

İklim Öngel

 
A study conducted by the office of the CHP’s Deputy General Chair with Responsibility for the Economy has revealed that, while 15 billion lira was made available to ‘yes’, the budget at the disposal of ‘no’ was 15 million lira. This means that one thousand times more public funding was given to ‘yes’ than ‘no’. Deputy General Chair with Responsibility for the Economy, Aykut Erdoğdu, said, ‘All of our tax money was allotted to one side. For every single lira we spent, they spent one thousand lira. Even though they had a budget one-thousand times greater at their disposal, we won the referendum.’
Erdoğdu has compiled a study entitled, ‘Public spending over the referendum’. The study has revealed the magnitude of the public funds that were channelled into ‘yes’ campaigning.
According to the study, the government, which spent 176 billion lira in the January-April period in 2016, spent 216 billion lira in the same period this year. It is pointed out in the study, which draws attention to the 40 billion lira increase in expenditure, that 29 billion lira of this was expenditure that was brought forward due to the referendum.
According to the study, the government made the following referendum-related expenditure out of public funds in the first four months of 2017:
* The amount of 16 billion lira paid under the head of operating deficit and Treasury assistance to the Social Security Institution to prevent problems from being experienced at hospitals and pharmacies until the referendum,
* 2.9 billion lira in additional lesson payments and 12.5 billion lira in agricultural subsidy payments,
* 2.4 billion lira in transfers serving economic and financial purposes and other transfers made to households,
* 2 billion lira in shares of income reserved for municipalities and province special administrations,
* 1.4 billion lira in progress payments made to contractors,
* 1.1 billion lira in payments to consultancy companies and for services obtained from individuals, and
* 600 million lira in transfers made to private enterprises, civil society organisations, foundation universities and individuals.
 ‘No’ won despite the thousand-fold difference
Erdoğdu, pointing out that the budget devoted to ‘no’ in the referendum was in the region of 15 million lira, said, ‘Of the additional budget of 40 billion lira spent in the first four months of 2017 as opposed to 2016, 15 billion was spend directly on the ‘yes’ campaign in the referendum.’ Erdoğdu, saying that the ‘no’ camp won the referendum on a budget one-thousand times smaller, indicated that the thousand-fold difference alone showed how unfair the contest had been. Erdoğdu, saying they knew about the money in support of ‘yes’ that had been collected from companies and had come from cronies who had won tenders, the resources of off-budget entities and advertising awarded to TV stations, but they had not included non-public funds in this study, stated that there was a thousand-fold difference when the amounts available to it were compared to the ‘no’ budget. Erdoğdu said, ‘“Yes” ruled the roost and even public announcements were rooting for “yes”.’
Erdoğdu, pointing out that resources in the budget cannot be used for purposes apart from those that are customary and well-established, commented as follows, ‘Payments cannot be brought forward. It is a monumental injustice for payments that are meant to be made over the year and that are capable of swaying the preference of the wide masses such as transfers to the poor, student grants, additional lesson payments and allowances such as those for food, beverages and clothing to be made to coincide in their entirety with the referendum and for them to be turned into a kind of referendum campaigning, and this is contrary to budgeting principles and a genuine electoral contest. All of our tax money was allotted to one side. For every single lira we spent, they spent one thousand lira. Even though they had a budget one-thousand times greater at their disposal, we won the referendum even in the face of such injustice.’