Who wants a stretchy campaign?

What could have prompted the Commission on Elections to propose that the campaign period for the May 2016 elections be extended from the current 90 days to 120?

We know that senators are against it. One of the incumbent senators who is seeking re-election  asserts that "a longer campaign translates into a costlier campaign.”

By the same token, another re-electionist senator says the poll body's proposal would entail more expenses for both national and local candidates.

But one senator goes further to say that an extended campaign period could heighten tensions among warring polticial factions.

Then he says that this is also likely to adversely affect the implementation of vital public works projects. Flood control projects that should have been finished yesterday, for instance, would have to take a backseat to campaign sorties by candidates for four long months.

We also know that congressmen are against it. One avers that a longer campaign period would favor national candidates since those running for president, vice president and senator must wage a nationwide campaign, which they cannot do in only three months or 90 days as mandated by the Omnibus Election Code.

Leyte Rep. Ferdinand Martin Romualdez concedes that a longer campaign period would allow voters enough time to know the candidates better, but warns the poll body that they cannot change the law by themselves because lawmaking is the sole function of Congress. Deputy Speaker and Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao agrees wholehartedly with this view.

So, if lawmakers themselves are against a four-month campaign period in 2016, it stands to reason that the Comelec should withdraw the proposal pronto as it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing the legislative mill. 

-End-

Image by: Rappler