UNDER the rules of the game as we?ve known them from the first post-Edsa presidential election in 1992 until 2004, the start of the presidential campaign on Feb. 9 would?ve been preceded by a flurry of activities in January, from party conventions to the filing of candidacies. But the adoption of automated counting meant that the convention and filing period had to take place much earlier (November of last year). This suggested a kind of extended lull stretching from the end of November to the second week of February.

However, as it turned out, significant decisions were made, which essentially stretched the normal campaign period of four months (February to May) to six months (adding December and January) because the restrictions on campaigning were in effect lifted for that period. This, of course, brought a bonanza to mass media, allowing the promiscuous placement of advertisements for candidates who could afford them, thus affecting the dynamics of national campaigns as they?ve come to be understood.

Among these changes is the decision to permit members of the Cabinet to stay in office even when seeking elective office. Just as the loosening of restrictions on Cabinet members favors those already holding positions of authority, the most recent decision by the Commission on Elections follows the unhealthy precedent it set for candidates in 2004.

When the ban on advertising in mass media was originally lifted in 2001, the original intention was to keep advertising strictly limited to 120 minutes per candidate. Since 2004, the Comelec has interpreted the limit in a manner favorable to the networks and candidates with a big war chest.

As it has recently announced, the Comelec decided to allow each candidate 120 minutes of ad time per TV station (covering at least five free TV channels, and over 50 cable channels) and another 180 minutes for each radio station. In effect, the Comelec has exponentially multiplied the ability of candidates to place ads.

Consider the effect this will have on the current contest. In the midterm elections of 2007, a noticeable increase in voter interest in debates and forums between candidates took place. This trend has continued into the present presidential campaign: candidates have been criticized by the public for not appearing in the many forums and debates sponsored by civic groups and media organizations. However, the reach and healthy effect these forums can have on voters can, in turn, be offset by heavy spending on commercials that can scientifically target large segments of our society not particularly inclined (or able, because of pressing needs) to watch debates.

This gives the resource-rich candidates an undue advantage over the resource-poor. The impact of the processed message can drown out the free and open interplay of opinions and ideas supposed to take place during elections. Aside from changes in voter behavior, an increasingly large electorate can no longer be reached, personally, as in the past, by barnstorming the country; thus the electorate becomes all the more susceptible to the influence of money poured into ads.

As Paul advised Timothy, the love of money is the root of all evil. In the past, politically speaking, our laws subscribed to the notion that permitting lavish spending in elections would mar the integrity of elections. But it is also a truism that whoever has the gold makes the rules, and the rules as they?ve been evolving since 2004 favors the moneyed candidates.

Hence this appeal to voters and candidates alike, on the eve of the start of the formal campaign period: For the voters, be aware of the rules and how they can potentially affect your behavior. For the presidential candidates, the rules stipulate you can spend P500 million on your campaign, although the innovation of an extended interval between the filing of candidacies and the campaign period gave all candidates a two-month loophole. Can the candidates declare?and prove?at the end of the campaign, that they stayed within this limit? And if not, will anyone be punished?