Democracy undermined by lack of strict laws on campaign funding
Kamotho Waiganjo
By
Kamotho Waiganjo
| Jul 11, 2026
The recent gazettement of draft campaign finance guidelines by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) demands reflection on a worrying global phenomenon; the crisis of democratic legitimacy.
The crisis arises from the profound inadequacy of campaign finance laws to prevent money from corrupting the political process. From the boardrooms of Tokyo to the vitongojis of Nairobi, the legal frameworks designed to ensure fair play are proving porous shields against the influence of wealthy elites.
The result is a global system where elections are frequently auctions, and governance is a reward for the highest bidder. The structural failures of campaign finance regulation are a global phenomenon. In Japan, the "money politics" culture has deep roots, with recent scandals exposing a system where corporate donations and political funding are inextricably linked.
Critics argue that the Liberal Democratic Party's long-term rule is underpinned by this system, where defence contractors, for instance, funnel donations to politicians who then advocate for policies that benefit them, raising concerns about a "kickback" dynamic at the heart of government. The US has been mired in conflict over contribution limits since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, a situation scholars describe as the most dysfunctional among comparable democracies.
Most recently on June 30, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission that federal limits on how much money political parties can spend in direct coordination with their candidates are unconstitutional. The impact on money and politics will be phenomenal. In Mexico, which boasts a successful transition to democracy, campaign finance systems are plagued by persistent corruption and powerful party elites.
Academic research suggests that the design of campaign laws often dictates their failure. In many instances, the social and political dynamics of different countries demand different campaign finance regulation models; a "one-size-fits-all" approach to campaign finance is doomed to fail.
In many jurisdictions what is notable is a "dysfunctional design," where laws prioritise administrative compliance over genuine transparency and effective accountability. Nowhere is this global crisis more acute than in Kenya, where the situation illustrates how weak laws and ineffective enforcement can fundamentally subvert democratic ideals.
As Kenya gears up for the 2027 General Election, concerns have been expressed that in every successive election, money is increasingly creating a "government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy".
For instance, the financial barriers to running for office have priced out ordinary citizens. It is estimated that more than 95 per cent of Kenyans cannot afford the cost of entry into elective politics, creating a Parliament largely populated by those with the deepest pockets.
Data from the 2017 elections shows staggering expenditure; in the Northern Kenya constituencies of Mandera East and Lafey, the winners spent an estimated Sh170 million to secure a seat. This turns politics into a high-stakes investment rather than a service to the public. To its credit, Kenya possesses campaign finance laws and can build on them.
Unfortunately, for now, they exist as a mere "paper tiger", without an effective regulation and enforcement mechanism. Civil society groups have long complained of gaps that unchecked campaign spending and opaque funding sources distort electoral competition. Iniquitous campaign financing practices produce a clear cause-and-effect cycle: opaque campaign financing leads directly to post-election corruption, as candidates seek a return on their investment.
The Kenyan Parliament, a direct beneficiary of an ineffective campaign finance legal framework, has been accused of deliberately failing to implement effective laws, allowing the defective status quo to persist despite efforts from the judiciary and the IEBC. Voters are also complicit, with many preferring to support candidates perceived as wealthy and able to provide handouts, perpetuating a system where political competition is more about financial muscle than ideas.
Kenya’s situation is a cautionary tale of how legislative intent is neutralized by a lack of political will from voters, political parties and candidates and weak regulatory and enforcement capacity. Until Kenya and other democracies are willing to address the root causes; the structural flaws in law design, the capture of enforcement agencies, the culture of impunity, and the complicity of the voters, campaign finance will remain the primary driver of electoral malpractice and a threat to democracy itself.
-The writer is an advocate of the High Court