An op-ed that tracks the history of legislation, re: corporate donations. And then ends with some information, unsourced, re: donations. The refrain in this and other pieces is, funnily-enough, that corporations in the US have less influence over political results because direct donations are prohibited there (i.e., donors make them as individuals, not as companies), but not in India. There are also several pieces calling for the donations to be made transparent, which suggests to me that information on donations is just not widely available.

It is beyond doubt that contribution by companies is given not because of any ideological reason but really as a device to be in the good books of the ruling party. Thus between 1966 to 1969, 75 companies paid down Rs 1.87 crore out of which Rs. 144 lakhs were given to the ruling party; the ruling Congress party in 1967 alone received Rs 87 lakhs. The perception and reality have not changed—thus we find that in 2003-04, the BJP got Rs 90 crores as against the Congress’ Rs 65 crores. The peak of the BJP was Rs 155 crores in 2004-05 and it went down to Rs 137 crores in 2007-08. The rise in the share of the Congress party during this period was phenomenal, starting from 2002-03 at Rs 53 crores, to Rs 265 crores in 2007-08. More significant, the corporate-political nexus is illustrated by corporate donation to the BSP of Mayawati rising in 2002-03 from Rs 10.9 crores to Rs 55.6 crores in 2007-08. Does one need more proof of the invidious entry of the corporate sector in our body politic and of the dangerous consequences?

- - -

Here, allegedly, is some information on party donations and assets, showing the BJP has more funding than all other parties combined. But the source is sketchy--some student, Afroze Alam, put in a 'right-to-information' request.

http://www.travelindia-guide.com/elections-indian-lok-sabha/political-funding.php

- - -

This website tracks assets and spending of candidates. As summarized by Sainath, in the 2009 elections the impact of money was of course considerable. The downside is that there's no indication, that I can find, on who constitutes the main sources of funding.

"...There were 3,437 candidates in the polls with assets of less than Rs.1 million, says the report. Of these, just 15 (0.44 per cent) made it past the post. But your chances soar with your assets. Of the 1,785 candidates in the Rs.1 million-Rs.5 million group, 116 (6 per cent) won. This win-ratio goes up to 19 per cent of candidates for the Rs.5 million-Rs.50 million segment. And of 322 candidates in the Rs.50 million-plus or platinum tier, 106 (33 per cent) romped home. The higher you climb the ladder of lucre, the better your chances. That is obvious. But what is striking is how bleak things are for non-millionaires. Even a modest improvement in your wealth helps. Say, you move from the below Rs.1 million group to the Rs.1-5 million group - your chances immediately improve at a higher rate than your wealth. (Of course, that works only if you are already close to the Rs.1 million mark.) So it's not just that wealth has some impact on election outcomes - it influences them heavily and disproportionately as you go up the scale..."

- - -