Kenya parliament in session

Campaign finance reform is about returning the political process to the people. Failure to place reasonable restrictions on the role of money in elections results in wealthy individuals, large corporations, and lobbying firms dominating the political system. It is not a secret that special interests influence politics through campaign contributions. This is an affront to the integrity of elected officials. Through such contributions, votes are 'bought' by contributors."

Proponents of campaign financing reform will agree with me that the high cost of office-seeking and current ways of meeting those costs not only distract elected officials from their primary task of lawmaking, but leave the door open to the influence of special interests. When a politician is influenced by either the need to solicit contributions from special interests to finance a costly election campaign, or by a sense of obligation to benefactors, the politician may no longer represent the interests of his or her entire constituency.

The ability to influence electoral outcomes with infusions of cash poses a significant challenge to the idea of equality expressed in the principle of "one man, one vote" upon which democratic government is based.

If the outcome of elections can be determined by the amount of money spent on the political campaign, then special interest donors have greater power to influence elections than the average voter. Such a situation unjustly violates the principle of equality that is fundamental to democratic government.

It is prudent to note that vast concentrations of wealth and power are inherently undemocratic. Everyone deserves the opportunity to influence the governmental decisions that affect them, but a defining characteristic of politics in Kenya is a corrupt campaign finance system that enables corporate and wealthy elites to purchase political outcomes.

Suffice to say that even well-intentioned candidates often succumb, due to the fact that campaigns in this country are so long and so expensive. By comparison, campaigns are typically four months in Germany, three months in Austria, two months in Italy and Canada, less than two months in the UK, Belgium, and Denmark. Campaign spending in many of those countries is capped, so the amount of time and attention candidates need to devote to fundraising is limited. But in Kenya, when elections are over, we immediately swing into another electioneering period. The country is in a permanernt election mode!

This therefore means that all state officers / public officials feel pressure to keep raising money for the next campaign. This creates a culture that allows major contributors and financiers access to public officials that the average citizen doesn’t get.

The lack of a campaign financing system undermines our system of representative democracy. In particular, it encourages legislators to ignore their constituents and their duties, gives "special interests" disproportional influence, and discourages qualified candidates from running.

In many instances, politicians will be forced to ignore their constituents and their public duties because they must spend an inordinate amount of time chasing campaign money. Indeed, as campaigns have become increasingly expensive, candidates spend more and more time fund-raising. When elected, legislators immediately begin raising money for their next campaign because they must raise thousands of shillings a week to remain relevant and competitive. As a result, they devote less time and energy to the duties of public office and to their constituents.

Many candidates rely heavily on special interest money as a source of campaign funds. Hoping to gain influence, special interests, usually wealthy organizations and individuals, gladly supply legislators and prospective legislators with money.  Legislators often respond by tailoring their politics to please the special interests. And this is the truth we must accept.

When special interests funnel large sums of money into campaigns, many candidates feel bound to represent the contributors' interests lest they lose their source of special interest money in the future.' This "influence-peddling" disrupts our representative system, as many candidates inevitably place their wealthy contributors' interests above their constituents' interests.  Indeed, monied interests play a greater role in forming legislators' agenda because their constituents have less access to and influence with the candidates than do special interests.

The prevalence of money in campaigns further undermines our democratic system by limiting electoral choices.' Because only those who can quickly accumulate sufficient resources can run an effective campaign, many candidates choose not to run.' Indeed, many highly qualified potential candidates abstain from running because they have little access to lucrative funding. The ideal situation should be a full public financing system of elections, including free and equal radio and television time on the public airwaves for all ballot-qualified candidates and parties. Corporations should be prohibited from spending to influence elections.

A key part of campaign finance reform is disclosure. Requiring timely electronic reporting of contributions would allow the public, media, and policymakers to see who is providing funds as campaigns are in progress. And all "independent advocacy organizations" should be required to disclose their contributors.

Given the many demands on a politician, the competition for a politician's ear or favorable vote comes with a premium, and this is the perfect opportunity for the interest groups "buy" special favors from a politician with a campaign contribution.

A word of caution-even if campaign contributions from special interest groups influenced political decisions, restrictions on campaign financing would not eliminate this practice fully. Such restrictions would simply lead special interest groups to mutate and shift their resources from campaign contributions to lobbying.

Election campaigns in Kenya are "under-financed rather than over-financed." The current political system favors incumbents. Challengers must establish name and recognition to unseat incumbents. They need to wage well-financed campaigns, and therefore imposing limits on campaign financing may not appear to be practical for them at this time, much as it is important.
Beyond imposing limits on contributions, we must begin thinking of corrective measures. To further reform the electoral system, we can consider public financing of political campaigns, and restrictions on total campaign spending. To encourage competent new candidates to challenge incumbents, we should other than pay higher salaries to elected officials,  limit the number of terms or the length of service of elected officials, say to a maximum two terms.

Political contributions are investments in our democracy and the elected officials. The more they spend, the more investors expect in return. In the US for example, Wall Street spent over a billion dollars on campaigns and lobbying in Washington and kept Congress and regulators at bay—until it was too late to prevent a market meltdown that nearly destroyed the US economy. When Congress reformed health care, the only clear winners were the pharmaceutical companies, which put more than $30 million into the election and more than $500 million into lobbying.

This trend is catching up in Kenya, where mega business deals are struck before elections as a pre-condition for support. This must be prevented, and if not stopped, is likely to place the running of this country in the hands of a few wealthy individuals. The “Kenya ina Wenyewe” perception cannot be done away with if this trend is not tamed!

By Hon. Mishi Juma Khamis
Member of Parliament, Mombasa County.