There is no blueprint for campaign finance; each country will need to reflect its unique historical, political and socio-economic setting in the design of its own regulatory framework. This section focuses on comparing the strengths and weaknesses of existing legal frameworks by stressing the goals pursued by campaign finance regulations and their positive and negative effects on the electoral process. It also highlights several key elements to consider for all approaches regarding the main shortcomings of existing campaign finance systems worldwide.
Comparative assessment of strengths and weaknesses of existing legal frameworks
This section includes a summary table that assesses the potential positive and negative effects of existing frameworks against the goals pursued and the effect on the electoral process. ‘Strength’ relates to the rationale having led to the adoption of different campaign finance rules and the impact that these campaign finance regulations can have on the electoral process as a whole, while ‘weakness’ pertains to their negative effect.
|
Type of campaign finance regulation |
Potential Strengths |
Potential Weaknesses |
|
|
||
|
Sources of financing |
|
|
|
- Allocation of public funding |
→ enhancing political pluralism → levelling the playing field → limiting effects of corruption and reducing the influence of large donors on political debate →helping promote women’s participation in elections and increasing the number of female candidates and elected women |
→ Risk of over-dependency on financial state support → Weakening of links between the political parties/ candidates and their electorate → Harming political pluralism and emerging small parties/ candidates when eligibility threshold and allocation criteria are vaguely defined or too restrictive/high |
|
- Limitations/ bans on private contributions |
→ allowing electoral contestants to have a social and local anchorage/ and a grass-roots financial support → levelling the playing field →limiting effects of corruption |
→ Circumvention of rules when limitations/ bans only apply to election campaigns and not to political party financing → Limitation of freedom of speech and association |
|
|
||
|
Campaigning |
|
|
|
- Spending limits/ bans |
→ reducing the gap between wealthy and poor candidates and thus the advantage of the first ones over the second ones → ensuring equality of opportunities for candidates and political parties → constraining the growth of electoral campaign cost |
→ Circumvention of the spending limit when key-notions are not or are vaguely defined (electoral expenditure, length of the electoral campaign), when spending limit does not apply to all electoral actors (third-party spending) → Limitation of freedom of speech and association |
|
- Prohibitions on misuse of administrative resources |
→ reducing the inherent advantage of incumbent candidates over their opponents and ensuring equality of opportunities among electoral contestants →promoting a clear distinction between party and state → increasing transparency of campaign resources |
→ risk that all State activities are seen as abuses → Hindrance to an effective governance in the period prior to an election where, for instance, rules ban hiring staff during campaign periods
|
|
|
||
|
Control mechanisms |
|
|
|
- Reporting and disclosure |
→ ensuring that electoral contestants comply with campaign finance regulations through the submission of comprehensive and exhaustive reports →providing transparency of the financing of campaigns → holding electoral contestants accountable |
→ Reporting requirements too burdensome to be feasible → Deadlines for submitting financial reports too short to allow for accurate reporting → Absence of disclosure of (some) sources of financing → Harassment of supporters of the opposition party(ies) |
|
- Oversight |
→ ensuring effective enforcement of campaign finance regulations →enhancing transparency of campaign finance → creating safeguards against abuses or circumventions of campaign finance legislation |
→ Oversight body non endowed with investigative power; → Partiality or political appointments of the members of the EMB leading to deadlocked decision- making process/ political-biased decisions or absence of enforcement of regulations
|
|
- Sanctions |
→ sanctioning violations of campaign finance regulations → punishing those who fail to comply → deterring future non-compliance |
→ Oversight body not endowed with the power to impose sanctions; → existence of an array of sanctions which are not dissuasive enough to deter future non-compliance |
Main weaknesses of existing legal frameworks
Although a legal framework is necessary to regulate the influence of money in politics, it is not always sufficient. In many countries legal regimes governing campaign finance are riddled with loopholes and poorly enforced. It is difficult to enforce campaign finance regulation when laws are too complex, burdensome or vague to be implemented, or when oversight bodies are insufficiently resourced to carry out their duties.
Loopholes/ Ambiguous laws
One recurrent problem of existing campaign finance systems is imprecision or the lack of definitions of key terms. Indeed, it makes little sense to set out extensive and detailed reporting and disclosure requirements when the concepts of electoral expenditure, the length of the electoral campaign period or in-kind contributions are inadequately defined.[1] The absence of clarity in the regularity framework is also problematic when reporting requirements, such as opening a dedicated bank account or appointing a financial agent, or disclosure requirements are established by law without greater detail. The oversight body will then need to develop and issue instructions to further clarify the obligations of electoral contestants if it has the mandate to do so.
A common loophole is when regulations apply to either parties or candidates, but not to both, allowing for funds to be channelled from one to the other and thus circumventing the law. Most countries around the world do not have regulations on third-party spending. As mentioned in the IDEA Handbook on Political Finance, “actors that are neither political parties nor candidates may want to spend funds in order to influence political discourse in general or the outcome of an election. Such political spending by [third-parties] poses serious problems in terms of the amount of corporate and interested money that can be channeled in to the political process.”[2] This area remains problematic and third-parties are often used as vehicles to circumvent campaign finance regulations, such as spending limits, contribution limits or disclosure requirements in countries where this issue is not dealt with.
Absence of enforcement
The oversight body must be independent in terms of appointment, security of tenure and funding. It also needs to have adequate authority to supervise and investigate accounts and refer irregularities to criminal justice authorities. Whenever appointment and dismissal procedures of the oversight body members are not independent from political pressure, when appointees are not guaranteed security of tenure, or when the funding and the independence of its budget necessary for the oversight body to fulfill its mandate is not sufficient, there is a risk that the oversight body can be deadlocked along ideological lines, perceived as partial or be susceptible to biased enforcement of campaign finance regulations.
A broad range of sanctions is the main toolset that the oversight body can use to effectively enforce campaign finance regulations. Sanctions should be flexible enough to cover the type and gravity of a possible violation and also proportional, effective and deterrent. Thus, a balance should be struck between sanctions that are excessively harsh and those that are too weak to act as a sufficient deterrent, leading to situations where electoral contestants prefer to accept penalties rather than comply with the law.
[1]Defining such key understandings is critical to guarantee the completeness of the financial reports by enabling electoral contestants to classify the expenditures that have to be included in their financial report and have to be accounted for the compliance with the spending limit and the timeframe during which they have to abide by the campaign finance rules.
[2] Cf: p.259 of IDEA’s Handbook on Political Finance.
