According to him, the ability of corporates to provide liberalpolitical funding has been severely limited by the competitive milieu in the wake of import liberalisation. Besides, frequent general elections have escalated political funding demands: "Where will the money come from if elections are held every now and then?", he asks. But there are two other reasons, which Bajaj does not mention, for the reluctance to go in for big bang political funding. No political party holds sway over the polity. A coalition government at the Centre can only be replaced (in the foreseeable future) by another coalition. This makes claimants to funds numerous. And at the state level, governments are often formed by parties which are out of the coalition at the Centre. Political fragmentation overstretches the kitty of corporates. Secondly, the mainstream political parties are now gradually accepting liberalisation and economic reform. (BJP and the Congress talk the same language about controlling the fiscal deficit and raising the tax-GDP ratio). Corporate India cannot influence policythe way it was able to in the era of industrial licensing and import control.

Bajaj wants businessmen to tell politicians that they want a stable government. But tight-fisted business funding will not necessarily ensure general elections every five years. For that political reform will be required. Thus, a government in office can be thrown out only if the opposition is simultaneously able to offer an alternative government. A convention of this sort will also be required if state-funding of elections is to be viable. Besides, if state funding is to be a success, business donations (open or covert) must be abjured, instead of leveraging these (as suggested by Bajaj) to influence politics. Business funding, even at the margin, cannot co-exist with state funding of elections.