Enforce campaign finance limits

The Election Campaign Financing Act of 2013 by Kenyans was introduced to limit political campaign financing and promote political competition.

Several studies reveal that strict enforcement of spending limits reduce the incumbency advantage and by extension political monopolisation.

One such study is by International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in 2013 on controlling money in politics.

The study by Dr Magnus Ohman, IFES Senior Political Finance Adviser, found that there is no part of the world where money does not matter in a political decision-making process.

He quotes Jesse Unruh, a US politician and State Treasurer of California between 1922-1987, saying “Money is the mother's milk of politics.”

Therefore, management of political finance is necessary for credible elections because it has the potential to skew competition between contestants. Proper management ensures the country is governed effectively.

But despite the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) issuing the guidelines on spending limits on August 9, 2021, there is still no enforcement. Most people don’t know that such a law exists.

Many youth, for example, are conditioned that at the end of an electoral cycle, there exists a chance to get as much money as they can from politicians.

With such practices disregarded in the country, chances of an unfair outcome especially around ethnic enclaves are high.

Money has the potential to talk us into looking the other way when electoral malpractices occur. And the law seems to be evasive on the expenditure period and the corresponding election period.

The Elections Act defines the election period as the period between the publication of a notice by the commission for a presidential, parliamentary, or county election and the gazettement of the election results.

It does not take into consideration the spending prior to the election period, which is the most critical in the people’s perceptions of the ability of the candidate to successfully finance a campaign.

Research done by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Brazil shows that campaign money and spending reports should be strictly monitored and that all funds received by candidates are placed in a single bank account.

All transactions are required to be recorded to the Electoral Court and be made public.

If a candidate fails to declare any campaign expenses, he or she may lose office or be ineligible to run for any political office for eight years. They also face criminal charges.

Prior to the reforms, Brazil’s Federal Police initiated an investigation into local money laundering.

Investigators identified a major corruption conspiracy involving Petrobras and Brazil's largest construction businesses. It also unearthed approximately R$6 billion in paid bribes.

And over 175 people were charged with criminal violations and secured 93 convictions since then. Key members of Brazil's Workers' Party (PT), the People's Party (PP), and the PMDB were also found guilty of diverting billions of dollars through procurement contracts to fund their political campaigns.

Kenya has had its share of campaign financing scandals — from the 1965 maize scandal to more recent ones like NYS, Kemsa and Arror and Kimwarer dams. Anglo Leasing, too, was linked to the financing of political activity. Goldenberg cost the country more than 10 percent of GDP.

The difference between Brazil and Kenya is that Brazil has been successful in convictions, which are largely elusive in Kenya.

Some of the mitigation measures like wealth declaration and biometric identity are stuck because we do not want to get rid of old practices. Analysis of wealth declaration will elicit serious questions that can lead to behaviour changes.

Let us limit campaign financing that can give way to political competition and make us choose leaders with high ethical standards.