CAMPAIGN FINANCING - PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE

INTRODUCTION Original Link The long overdue article which I have been struggling with from June 2020 started the research in Sweden while i was under lockdown by Migrationverkert. The documents were stolen December 16, 2020 in Jackson, Michigan on my way to Chicago, Illinois along with all my bags. This is the second time my things have been stolen in the USA. However unlike the first time when the police took my statement and would not even let me in the police station in Dallas, Texas; in Jackson and all the city coming down the police would not even take my statement. Greyhound lines Inc was worse. They tried to send me all over the world. I suppose they were given the records in the file I had on them. I have been collecting information on their breaches from 2019. Conclusion to the matter is that even though this article has been fought and we know that it is the very important things which the devil tries to stop. If you are not bothering him he knows that he has you. He goes after people who are affecting his kingdom. The information is for people who think the electoral process is very complex, while those who are already in there want to maintain the mystique. It is all this mystique and negative stigmatization which is causing a dirge of good representation all over the world. One of the rules of attraction, like, tends to attract like. This is showing those of you in the Caribbean and especially in Africa all it takes is just for a group of people to come together and plan and strategize. They do not need any big bank roll . They just want to make a change. DEFINITION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCING Competitive elections require that electoral contestants have a means for financing their election campaigns and routine operations. Campaign finance, an element of broader political finance, refers to all funds raised and spent in order to promote candidates, political parties or policies in elections, referendums, initiatives, party activities and party organizations. The main features of a campaign finance system vary considerably across countries. Generally speaking, there are two sources of funds for parties and candidates: public financing and private financing. Limits may apply to each of these funding types. Systems may also dictate expenditure (spending) limits, rules for reporting and disclosing contestants' financial information, mechanisms to monitor and oversee whether contestants comply with regulations, and ways to apply sanctions to those who violate them. Countries may adopt campaign financing regimes based solely on public financing, on private financing or a mix of both. Political parties, charitable organizations, and political action committees (in the United States) are vehicles used in aggregating funds to keep campaigns alive. "Political finance" is also a popular terminology, and is used internationally for its comprehensiveness. Campaign finance deals with "the costs of democracy", a term coined by G. Alexander Heard for his famous analysis of campaign finance in the U.S.[1] Political campaigns have many expenditures, such as the cost of travel of candidates and staff, political consulting, and the direct costs of communicating with voters via media outlets. Campaign spending depends on the region. For instance, in the United States, television advertising time must be purchased by campaigns, whereas in other countries, it is provided for free. In Jamaica where I am from it is a combination of both. The government gives some free spots. The need to raise money to maintain expensive political campaigns diminishes ties to a representative democracy because of the influence large contributors have over politicians. Although the political science literature indicates that most contributors give to support parties or candidates with whom they are already in agreement, there is wide public perception and knowing that donors expect government favors in return. (such as specific legislation being enacted or defeated), so some have come to equate campaign finance with political corruption and bribery. These views have led governments to reform campaign financing in the hope of eliminating big money influence. The causes and effects of campaign finance rules are studied in political science, economics, and public policy, among other disciplines. PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE FINANCING Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Funds to Political Parties and Candidates Public funding are funds or resources provided by the State/Government for political parties and/or candidates. Provisions often state that political parties and candidates should have an equitable access to public funds. Oftentimes, the rules regarding public funding are not clearly stated in law, and even if they are, there is often a (real or perceived) misuse of public resources by the incumbent party or candidate. The legal framework can be drafted in a way to encourage the founding and sustainability of a multi-party system. Ongoing oversight from a responsible government body combined with public (civil society)oversight) through CSO watchdog capacity also can improve the monitoring and full disclosure of funding across party lines and in lines consistent with the intent of full disclosure and fairness in campaign financing. Depending on the form in which public resources are made available, public funding is divided into direct public funding or indirect public funding. Direct public funding is given to political parties and/or candidates in the form of money – usually as bank transfers but at times in cash or cheque. Indirect public funding is when resources with a monetary value is provided by the Government to political parties and/or candidates. ADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC FUNDING Arguments for public funding A majority of the countries in the world give some form of public funds to political parties and/or candidates. Convincing as the arguments above might seem, there are also several good arguments for public funding. Public funding is a natural and necessary cost of democracy Political parties and candidates need money for their electoral campaigns, to keep contacts with their constituencies, to prepare policy decisions and to pay professional staff. If a country wants to have stable political parties and/or independent candidates, some argue that they also need to be prepared to help pay for them. Public funding can limit the influence of interested money and thereby help curb corruption If political parties and candidates get at least a basic amount of money from the public purse this has the potential to limit the likelihood of them feeling the need to accept “interested money” from donors who want to influence their policies, rhetoric or voting behaviour in the legislature. With public funding the State can encourage or demand changes in for example how many women candidates a party fields In the same way as private donations can come with demands on party or candidate behaviour, the State can use public funds to level the playing field and encourage (or force) political parties to undertake reforms, hold internal elections or field a certain number of women candidates, youth or persons from an ethnic minority on their ballots. Public funding can increase transparency in party and candidate finance and thereby help curb corruption If political parties and candidates receive a substantial amount of their income from the State, they can more easily be required to disclose their income and expenditure. If their financial statements are made publicly available, voters can decide which sources of funds are acceptable to them, and they will also have better opportunities to hold politicians accountable. If parties and candidates are financed with only private funds, economical inequalities in the society might translate into political inequalities in government In many countries, the support base of political parties and candidates are divided along socioeconomic lines. The support base of labour or dalit parties for example, are traditionally less wealthy than the support base of other parties. If political parties receive all their income from private donations, there is a risk that (mostly accepted) socioeconomic differences in the society will translate into (mostly not accepted) differences in representation and access to political power. Political parties and candidates need support in meeting growing costs of campaigning Politics and political campaigning is an increasingly costly business. While parties and candidates used to rely heavily on voluntary labour for door-to-door canvassing, they now need to pay for expensive advertising in newspapers or on posters, or buy time on radio or television to get their message through to the voters. Staff costs have risen in many political parties over the last decades. In societies with high levels of poverty, ordinary citizens cannot be expected to contribute much to political parties In societies where many citizens are under or just above the poverty line, they cannot be expected to donate large amounts of money to political parties or candidates. If parties and candidates receive at least a basic amount of money from the State the country could have a functioning multi-party system without people having to give up their scarce resources. DISADVANTAGES OF PUBLIC FUNDING Arguments against public funding Those who oppose public funds to political parties or candidates often use one or several of the following arguments: Public funding increases the distance between political elites (party leadership, candidates) and ordinary citizens (party members, supporters, voters) When political parties and candidates do not depend on their supporters or members neither for monetary contributions (membership, donations) nor for voluntary labour, they might be less likely to involve them in party decisions or consult their opinions on policy issues. Public funding preserves a status quo that keeps the established parties and candidates in power Public funds are often allocated among political parties and candidates in the national legislature. This may make it more difficult for new political forces to gain representation. The legal framework can limit this negative influence by providing special funds for new political parties or candidates. Through public funds, taxpayers are forced to support political parties and candidates whose views they do not share Many believe that ordinary taxpayers should not be forced – through the public purse – to support political parties or candidates that they would never choose to vote for. Instead they should have the possibility to decide if and when they want to donate money to a political party or candidate. Public funds to political parties and candidates takes money away from schools and hospitals to give to rich politicians When introduced, public funding is often unpopular among the public. Public resources are scarce and needed for everything from schools and hospitals to roads and salaries for staff. To many people, using public funds to give to political parties and candidates would be far down their list of priorities. Political parties and candidates both take the decision and collect the money The decision to allocate public funds to parties and candidates is most often taken in the national legislature (or in some cases in the Government). This means that the political parties and candidates who will collect the money, also take the decision. Political parties risk becoming organs of the State rather than parts of civil society If all or a substantial amount of the party income comes directly from the State rather than from voluntary sources, political parties risk losing their independence and become organs of the State, thereby losing their ties to the civil society. Public Financing for Candidates Today, 14 states in the USA provide some form of public financing option for campaigns. Each of these plans require the candidate to accept public money for his or her campaign in exchange for a promise to limit both how much the candidate spends on the election and how much they receive in donations from any one group or individual. This chart contains additional details on these 14 states. These options are frequently limited, applying only to certain types of candidates. Governor/Lieutenant Governor State Legislative Offices State Supreme Court/Other Arizona Connecticut Florida Hawaii Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota New Jersey Rhode Island Vermont Arizona Connecticut Hawaii Maine Minnesota New Mexico West Virginia Public Financing for Parties Some states provide public monies for political parties, to help fund conventions and other party activities such as voter registration drives. Currently, Alabama, Arizona, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina*, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah* allow taxpayers to “check-off” a box on their return indicating a desire to contribute to the state’s political parties. The amounts range from $1 to $25. Florida (Fla. Stat. 99.103) remits to political parties most of the candidate filing fees that are collected from that party, with 15 percent reserved for the general fund. Iowa statute I.C.A. § 68A.601 provides an example of a tax check-off plan for political parties, whereby any person whose tax liability for the year is $1.50 or more can send $1.50 to the Iowa election campaign fund when they submit their tax return. *The House of Representatives in North Carolina (HB 589) and Utah (HB 50) have passed bills eliminating the checkoff provision. These bills have not yet been passed by the Senates. Kentucky recently eliminated a similar program. ADVANTAGES OF PRIVATE FUNDING Private financing Some countries rely heavily on private donors to finance political campaigns. These kinds of donations can come from private individuals, as well as groups such as trade unions and for-profit corporations. Tactics for raising money may include direct mail solicitation, attempts to encourage supporters to contribute via the Internet, direct solicitation from the candidate, and events specifically for the purpose of fundraising, or other activities. Fundraising from private donors is often a significant activity for the campaign staff and the candidate, especially in larger and more prominent campaigns. For example, one survey in the United States found that 23% of candidates for statewide office surveyed say that they spent more than half of their scheduled time raising money. Over half of all candidates surveyed spent at least 1/4 of their time on fundraising. Supporters of private financing systems believe that, in addition to avoiding government limitations on speech, private financing fosters civic involvement, ensures that a diversity of views are heard, and prevents the government from tilting the scales to favor those in power or with political influence. Reasons for Private Campaign Financing Private campaign funding encourages citizen participation in the electoral process and allows voters to express political opinions by supporting contestants who represent their interests. Private campaign financing can reduce the role or interference of government in campaigning, reducing the potential for incumbent governments to manipulate public funding for its electoral advantage. Private campaign financing refers to funding or free or reduced rate materials and services ("in-kind" contributions) from private donors, such as individuals or companies. Additionally, political parties may make donations to candidates, and candidates may use their personal resources to finance their campaigns. Parties and candidates may also take out loans to finance campaign activities. Candidates and parties should be required to report on the private donations they receive, including the source, date, and amount of the donation. Access to information about donations from individuals and other private donors can reveal any potential conflict of interest the candidate or party may have when making a policy or acting in government. Likewise, information about private funding for candidates and parties, including limits on individual donations, allows citizens, contestants and officials to monitor private campaign financing activities in relation to legal restrictions. Example of private campaign financing data Data about private campaign financing includes information about private campaign finance limits and regulations, as well as the source of private donations, and the amounts and dates of donations. DISADVANTAGES OF PRIVATE FUNDING Critics of private campaign financing claim that it leads to votes being "bought" and producing large gaps between different parties in the money they have to campaign against. One study finds that political donations give donors significantly greater access to policymakers. Most countries that rely on private donations to fund campaigns require extensive disclosure of contributions, frequently including information such as the name, employer and address of donors. This is intended to allow for policing of undue donor influence by other campaigns or by good government groups, while preserving most benefits of private financing, including the right to make donations and to spend money for political speech, saving government the expense of funding campaigns, and keeping government from funding partisan speech that some citizens may find odious. However, in countries such as the United States, "dark money" spent on political campaigns is exempt from disclosure, and dark money spending has mushroomed in recent years in US state and federal elections, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars in each U.S. presidential election. EXAMPLES OF SOME PUBLIC FUNDING SYSTEMS IN USE The two main types of programs offered in the states for public financing of elections are the clean elections programs offered in states such as Maine and Arizona, and programs that provide a candidate with matching funds for each qualifying contribution they receive. The “clean election states” offer full funding for the campaign, and the matching funds programs provide a candidate with a portion of the funds needed to run the campaign. Clean Elections Programs In the clean elections programs offered only in Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, candidates are encouraged to collect small contributions (no more than $5) from a number of individuals (depending on the position sought) to demonstrate that he or she has enough public support to warrant public funding of his or her campaign. In return, the commission established for the program gives the candidate a sum of money equal to the expenditure limit set for the election. New Mexico offers a similar program, but only for judicial candidates. As an example of a clean elections program, a candidate for state office in Arizona must raise $5 contributions from at least 200 people in order to qualify for the program. In return, the state provides the candidate with public money in an amount equal to the expenditure limit. In the 2014 election, the expenditure limit for gubernatorial candidates was $1,130,424, and the limit for legislative positions was $22,880. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, who declined participation in the clean elections program, raised $2.4 million for his 2014 campaign, more than double the amount authorized for the program’s participants. The program is funded through a 10 percent surcharge on all civil penalties and criminal fees, civil penalties paid by the candidates, and the qualifying contributions the candidate raised. Matching Funds Programs The other type of public financing program, offered in states such as Florida and Hawaii, provides matching funds for candidates up to a certain amount. In Hawaii, candidates are encouraged to limit their contributions and expenditures to an amount set by the legislature. For the 2014 election, the expenditure limit for the general election was $1,597,208. The candidate who participates in the matching funds program is eligible to receive 10 percent of this limit in public funds, or $159,721. A candidate must first receive $100,000 in qualifying contributions during the primary season for the state to provide a matching $100,000 during the general election. The candidate can then raise an additional $59,721 in qualifying contributions that the state will match, for a total of $319,442. The candidate can then raise additional money from other sources, like PACs, parties, or individuals, to reach the expenditure limit of $1,597,208. For example, Hawaii governor David Ige received $105,164.73 in public funds for his 2014 gubernatorial campaign, and spent the maximum of $1,597,208 during the general election. His challenger, Duke Aiona, who elected to not participate in the public financing program, spent $1,532,306.65 on his unsuccessful election. Mr. Aiona, like all candidates, had to comply with the state’s contribution limits, but did not have to worry about collecting the smaller qualifying contributions from many different sources. The program is funded through a tax return checkoff, whereby citizens choose whether they want to contribute three dollars from their tax burden to the Hawaii Election Campaign Fund. The public financing method of regulating money in elections has been the subject of several U.S. Supreme Court cases. To see how judicial decisions impact public financing, go to NCSL's web page on the effect of the courts on campaign finance. The map below shows the states that have a public financing system in place, and which kind is available. During the 1907 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt stated “The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties.” Public financing of elections, he believed, would ensure that no particular donor has an outsized influence on the outcome of any election, and would “work a substantial improvement in our system of conducting a campaign.” Public financing of campaigns remains the least-used method of regulating money in elections, partly due to the result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo. In that decision, the Court struck down a provision of the Federal Election Commission mandating public financing for presidential elections. States cannot require candidates to use public financing programs, and the financial advantages of private fundraising frequently prompt candidates to opt out of public financing programs, which often include expenditure limits for participants. Candidates who opt not to use public funds can solicit contributions from individuals, PACs, unions, parties, and corporations, without having to abide by state expenditure limits. For states that elect to provide a public financing option, money is available for either individual candidates or political parties. Rebate Programs In many countries, such as Germany and the United States, campaigns can be funded by a combination of private and public money. In some electoral systems, candidates who win an election or secure a minimum number of ballots are allowed to apply for a rebate to the government. The candidate submits an audited report of the campaign expenses and the government issues a rebate to the candidate, subject to some caps such as the number of votes cast for the candidate or a blanket cap. For example, in the 2008 election, candidates for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong were entitled to a rebate up to HK$11 per vote. Public financing other Countries Other countries choose to use government funding to run campaigns. Funding campaigns from the government budget is widespread in South America and Europe. The mechanisms for this can be quite varied, ranging from direct subsidy of political parties to government matching funds for certain types of private donations (often small donations) to exemption from fees of government services (e.g., postage) and many other systems as well. Supporters of government financing generally believe that the system decreases corruption; in addition, many proponents believe that government financing promotes other values, such as civic participation or greater faith in the political process. Not all government subsidies take the form of money; some systems require campaign materials (often air time on television) to be provided at very low rates to the candidates. Critics sometimes complain of the expense of the government financing systems. Conservative and libertarian critics of the system argue that the government should not subsidize political speech. Other critics argue that government financing, with its emphasis on equalizing money resources, merely exaggerates differences in non-monetary resources. The United Kingdom, Norway, India, Russia, Brazil, Nigeria, Sweden are some jurisdictions where methods of publicly funded election legislation and the reasons for the need of alternatives to privately funded campaigns have been considered - International Campaign Financing. In Jamaica under the The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act 2016 Section 52AN National Campaign fund (c) promoting the active participation of citizens in the electoral process. Under this section Financing is available for candidates. REGULATION The concept of political finance can affect various parts of a society's institutions which support governmental and social success. Correct handling of political finance impacts a country's ability to effectively maintain free and fair elections, effective governance, democratic government and regulation of corruption. The United Nations convention against Corruption, recognizing this, encouraged its members to "enhance transparency in the funding of candidatures for elected public office and, when applicable, the funding of political parties." When conducting a study pursuing and understanding of what international civil society has determined integral to regulation of political finance, Magnus Öhman and Hani Zainulbhai identified several common understandings by certain governments: Money is necessary for democratic politics, and political parties must have access to funds to play their part in the political process. Regulation must not curb healthy competition. Money is never an unproblematic part of the political system, and regulation is desirable. The context and political culture must be taken into account when devising strategies for controlling money in politics. Effective regulation and disclosure can help to control adverse effects of the role of money in politics, but only if well conceived and implemented (emphasis mine). Effective oversight depends on activities in interaction by several stakeholders (such as regulators, civil society and the media) and based on transparency. Their study also affirmed the perspective laid down by the Council of Europe, when discussing the concept of effective regulation of campaign financing: "[We are] convinced that raising public awareness on the issues of prevention and fight against corruption in the field of funding of political parties is essential to the good functioning of democratic institutions." The Importance Of Reporting And Disclosure Reporting and disclosure of campaign finance information makes candidates and political parties accountable to both the campaign finance oversight body and to the general public for how they finance their campaigns. While the frequency and content of reporting on campaign finance varies, reporting by candidates and parties to the campaign oversight body should always be timely and transparent. The law should set out precisely what reporting is required, the time frame, and the method of public disclosure. It is good practice to require initial, interim, and final reports on campaign financing. The reporting of information to the oversight body enables the campaign finance oversight body to monitor compliance with the rules. Generally, candidates and parties must meet certain public disclosure requirements when they run for public office. This may include public disclosure of assets and liabilities at the time of registration or throughout the campaign. In some cases, the oversight body publishes disclosure information, while in other cases the candidates or parties must publish it themselves. Disclosure requirements vary from country to country, and are balanced with privacy and data-protection concerns. Access to campaign finance information helps inform citizens about where political parties and candidates receive their financial support, allowing voters to make more informed choices. The majority of Latin American countries legally require that financial information from parties and candidates is made public. Costa Rica has an electronic portal with easy access to this financial information, presented in standardized formats that allow it to be managed easily in data software. In Peru, the 2005 political party finance regulations requires parties to report on finances on a bi-monthly basis during an election period. The 1997 electoral law requires all candidates to report election expenses within 60 days of the announcement of results. Summary-level and granular, individual information on income and expenses for each candidate is disclosed and available for download on the website of the National Office of Electoral Processes. Reporting And Disclosure Data Relevant data includes rules for reporting and disclosing campaign finance information, who is reporting and disclosing that information, and the actual information for public disclosure. In some cases, the actual reports and disclosures of parties and candidates may be available to the public. The regulations for reporting and disclosure should include the information political parties and candidates must submit about their campaign contributions and expenditures, and when and how those reports must be submitted. Disclosure requirements may include public disclosure of assets and liabilities at the time of registration or throughout the campaign. As for data relevant to public campaign financing, private campaign financing and campaign expenditures, disclosure data should include the identity of donors and the dates, amounts, and types of contributions and expenditures. Reports should clearly distinguish between the party as a whole, individual candidates and, where applicable, lists of candidates. They should contain enough detail to be useful and understandable to the general public. It is good practice for authorities to introduce a standard template and guidance for reporting, which enables timely analysis and meaningful comparison between different parties and candidates. Reports should clearly distinguish between contributions and expenditures. Further, reporting formats should include the itemization of all contributions and expenditures into standardized categories as defined by the regulations. Itemized reporting should include the date and amount of each transaction, as well as copies of proof of the transaction (for example, receipts, checks, bank transfers and loan agreements). The Purpose For Oversight And Monitoring Oversight and monitoring of compliance with campaign finance rules are important mechanisms for enhancing the transparency and effective implementation of regulations. States often provide for an independent oversight body that monitors the implementation of campaign finance regulations, including the publication of reports. The regulatory authority's degree of independence varies, which can affect public confidence in campaign finance scrutiny and effectiveness. Legislative safeguards may be incorporated into the rules governing the selection, composition and mandate of the authority, so as to avoid partisan influence or government pressure. To increase effectiveness, an oversight body may also have the right to issue directions and guidance, investigate alleged breaches of the rules and either impose or seek sanctions for violations. Relationships between the campaign finance oversight body and other electoral authorities and government bodies, as well as between national and local stakeholders, should be clearly defined. The oversight body's mandate and areas of responsibility should be clearly delineated to avoid conflicts of interest or overlapping jurisdiction. Monitoring of timely campaign finance and expenditure reports by the public, journalists, and/or civil society organizations allows them to assess the fairness of electoral competition. It also allows them to review the potential influences on contestants when they gain elected office. Additionally, they can use the information to hold the oversight body accountable, which can contribute to its performance. Sample Oversight And Monitoring Data Oversight data includes information on whether each contestant submitted their report on time, late, or not at all, whether reports were complete as well as data on which contestants are subject to sanctions. In addition, oversight data includes information on the number of instances where sanctions were applied and whether the parties and candidates complied with the sanctions. The Purpose Of Sanctions And Appeals Effective enforcement of campaign finance regulations is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the campaign finance system, strengthening public confidence in the electoral process, and holding political parties and candidates accountable. Sanctions are penalties imposed by the campaign finance oversight body or other regulatory body, and in some cases a criminal court, on electoral contestants who violate campaign finance regulations. Sanctions aim to eliminate any benefit obtained from failing to comply with the law, punish those who fail to comply, and deter future non-compliance. Sanctions must at all times be clearly defined in law or regulation, known to the public and electoral contestants, enforceable and proportionate to their specific purpose. A range of sanctions may be applied, including warnings, administrative fines, partial or total loss of public funds, and, in the case of significant violations, criminal prosecution. All decisions should be recorded in writing and justified, and the parties involved should be informed of the decision in a timely manner. Whenever sanctions are imposed, the parties involved should have the right to access an appeal process and have recourse to judicial review of the appeal. The legal framework should provide reasonable deadlines for submission, consideration, and resolution of appeals. With access to information about sanctions and appeals, political parties can make sure they are treated fairly and also identify a means to appeal imposed sanctions. Meanwhile, data on any sanctions applied provides citizens with information about whether candidates and parties are complying with campaign finance regulations and if they have received appropriate penalties for violations. With access to information on legislation about penalties, civil society can measure if the law provides for an adequate range of sanctions to address non-compliance. When coupled with disclosure data, civil society can explore whether sanctions are applied in an unbiased manner. Sample Sanctions And Appeals Data Proceedings on sanctions and appeals, as well as information about the overall process, should be transparent and accessible to the public. Relevant data includes who, how, and why a particular candidate or party was sanctioned and which parties appealed the decision, why they appealed, and the outcome of the appeal process. Data should include substantive reasons and explanations supporting sanction and appeal decisions. Other relevant information about the appeals process includes any legislation defining the legal ways to appeal the oversight body's decisions and the deadlines by which appeals should be filed and decisions granted. CONCLUSION The U.S. campaign finance system unfairly favors a small handful of wealthy donors. Small donor public financing could fix that. There is a growing disconnect between elected officials and the majority of people they represent. Part of the blame lies with a campaign finance system that unfairly stacks the deck in favor of the few donors able to give large contributions. This is internationally not only in the USA. Citizens United and other court rulings ended decades of commonsense campaign finance laws in the USA. Now a handful of wealthy special interests dominate political funding, often through super PACs and shadowy nonprofits that shield donors’ identities. Brennan Center for Justice has pioneered the most effective and promising solution to the problem of big money in politics: small donor public financing, a system in which public funds match and multiply small donations. New York City’s multiple match system, in which a $50 donation generates a total of $350 for the candidate, has helped reduce the influence of special interests and empower average voters, and the idea is gaining traction across the country. It’s easy to see why. Small donor public financing incentivizes candidates to seek out many supporters, not just a few big donors. It enables more candidates from diverse backgrounds to run and it amplifies the voices of regular people. Designed right, small donor public financing also permits candidates to raise and spend what they need to compete in the super PAC era, should they choose to opt in. And, because it doesn’t restrict political spending, it stands up to the current Supreme Court’s requirements. Other approaches to public campaign financing include voucher systems, where citizens receive certain amounts in public funds they can direct to their preferred candidates. Tax credits for small campaign donations are another way to encourage more people to participate. RECOMMENDATIONS Boost Public Funding of Elections All levels of governments should enact a way to amplify the voices of regular people in elections and incentivize candidates to seek out broad support. Small donor public financing that provides a multiple match on modest donations has proven especially effective. In this era we the people are going to have to ensure these solutions become a reality. It is a Biblical Principle when God was building His first house everyone contributed Exodus 36 verse 6. In Africa we have to get out of the practises where our leaders are sending suitcases of money to France, Europe and Saudi Arabia to keep them in power. We also have to get from the place where external parties such as Europe and the Arabs are choosing who govern us as a people. We all have to become a part of the electoral process. What is Dark money?

APPENDIX I Dark Money What Is Dark Money? Dark money refers to contributions to political groups that are received from donors whose identities are not disclosed and that are used to influence elections. Dark money can have significant influence on elections, particularly when used by “independent expenditure” groups—generally characterized as Super PACs—that are legally permitted to receive and spend an unlimited amount of contributions. KEY TAKEAWAYS Dark money political contributions are growing. Anonymous political donors contribute dark money through social welfare nonprofits. Shell company campaign contributions to Super PACs avoid disclosure rules. Congressional Democrats target anonymous political donors and special interest lawsuits. Understanding Dark Money Transparency has become a standard for many organizations and endeavours affecting the public, including funding of elections for public office. Both federal and state governments have enacted regulatory regimes intended to make elections more open and honest by requiring disclosure of the identities of contributors to political candidates and parties. When the source of such political funding is unknown—whether because disclosure rules do not apply, are avoided through “loopholes,” or are deliberately evaded—the funds from the unidentified contributors are characterized as “dark money.” Over the last decade, election expenditures, including dark money spending, have increased enormously in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.1 In that 2010 decision, the Court concluded that a statute prohibiting the use of corporate money in elections—a ban originally enacted in 1909 and subsequently amended and expanded—was unconstitutional. Since that ruling, corporate contributions have added enormously to election spending while information identifying the contributors has become less available. Funding Vehicles for Political Contributions Except for campaign funding coming from a candidate’s own pocket, political candidates and parties rely on contributions and expenditures by third parties to support elections financially. A variety of political committees or organizations, subject to different degrees of legal regulations, are authorized to collect and expend contributions. Three principal types of funding mechanisms or organizations are involved in elections: traditional Political Action Committees (PACS); social welfare organizations, often called “(c)(4)s,” a reference to their designation section in the tax code; and Super PACs. Traditional PACs are transparent about their contributors and do not attract dark money. Social welfare organizations comprise the category that is most frequently identified as a dark money source. Super PACs, although subject to contributor disclosure requirements, increasingly receive funds from “shell corporations” that facilitate anonymity for their owners’ dark money contributions. Traditional PACs PACS can contribute funds directly to candidates and campaign committees. They are the most transparent funding source and are not associated with dark money. Many corporate PACs—for example, Comcast, Corp. and AT&T, Inc.—bear the company’s name. They must file reports that include the identity and contribution amount for all donors of $200 or more with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). PACs can receive contributions of up to $5000 per year from individual donors, often corporate employees or union members, and can give up to $5000 to a candidate and $15,000 to a party committee per election. PACs also can make unlimited expenditures independent of a party. In the 2020 elections, PACs made approximately 5% of total election expenditures of $14 billion. 2 Social Welfare Organizations For a long period, dark money was associated primarily with social welfare organizations, which are regulated by the Internal Revenue Service. Social welfare organizations are not required to disclose their contributors. Accordingly, donors to these organizations enjoy anonymity. Social welfare organizations are required to engage primarily in promoting the common good and general welfare. These organizations generally have taken the position that so long as involvement in elections is not their “primary activity,” they can contribute to campaigns for, or in opposition to, political candidates.3 Most tax advisors caution social welfare organizations—which are tax-exempt—that compliance with the primary purpose test requires that more than 50% of their activities, usually measured by their expenditures, should be nonpolitical. The requirement that social welfare organizations be primarily nonpolitical may be too great a burden for some donors seeking anonymity. This operational rule may account for these organizations’ contributions declining to 4% of total 2020 spending and for the increase in Super PAC funding, discussed below. Nonetheless, this interpretation of the social welfare organization regulation with respect to a “primary purpose” has resulted in significant spending in elections by anonymous donors. Often characterized as a “loophole,” this position has aroused criticism of IRS enforcement of the social welfare regulations. The IRS’ own “watchdog,” the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, issued an audit report in January 2020 asserting that the IRS has failed to identify 9,774 nonprofits that are politically active, have failed to register as required as “social welfare” organizations and should be assessed millions of dollars in penalties and fees.  The political orientation—and even the names of donors of some social welfare organizations—are publicly available. Tax-exempt charitable organizations that have associated “(c)(4)s” usually include the charity’s name in that of the social welfare organization, e.g., NRDC Action Fund, Inc., the NAACP National Voter Fund and NARAL Pro-Choice America. Other social welfare organizations have established public identities, e.g., Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth. While social welfare organizations are not required to disclose their donors, some identify at least some contributors. The Lincoln Project and the Club for Growth, among others, indicate that they disclose all donors. However, other groups—for example, the American Liberty Fund—are reported as not disclosing any contributors. Because many social welfare organizations involved in elections collect substantial funds and make expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates or parties, they often are referred to as “Super PACs.” However, for purposes of this article, because of their unique structure and status, “(c)(4)” social welfare organizations are discussed separately from Super PACs which are organized under section 527 of the tax code. Super PACs Super PACs can collect unlimited contributions and spend unlimited funds. But, they cannot contribute directly to candidates or political parties and must not “coordinate” their expenditures with candidates or parties. Super PACs’ independent expenditures now account for the largest share of independent political funding. In the 2020 election, it is estimated that Super PACs spent 63% of the $2.6 billion of independent expenditures made by political parties, social welfare organizations and Super PACs. Many Super PACs provide some measure of transparency with respect to their purpose and contributors. The political orientation of Super PACs often is evident from their names, e.g., ActBlue which supports Democrats and GOPAC which has long supported Republicans. Super PACs are required to include the names of their contributors and their respective contribution amounts in FEC filings. However, these filings do not always reveal the actual source of their funds. Some contributions are made through “shell corporations” whose owners are not disclosed. Although corporations and labor unions may organize PACs, federal law does not allow them to use their general treasury funds for election contributions to candidates or national party committees. However, they are allowed to make unlimited contributions to "independent expenditure"' committees, i.e. "Super PACs." A growing number of contributors are making their political contributions to Super PACs, as well as directly to campaigns, through limited liability companies, “LLCs.” Many LLCs’ spokesmen contend that their ultimate sources need not be disclosed. In two recent Florida state senate races, a controversy has developed with respect to the undisclosed source or sources of the sole contributions—of $360,000 in one contest and $180,000 in a second—made through an LLC to nominally “unaffiliated” and generally unknown candidates. Florida Democrats question whether the two candidates were recruited in order to cut into the Democratic Party candidates’ votes. In one contest, the unaffiliated candidate—who has the same surname, Rodriguez, as the Democratic candidate—won 6,974 (2.96%) of the votes and the incumbent Democrat lost by 20 votes. The use of LLCs to provide donor anonymity for US citizens has been controversial; an even greater concern on the part of some is the possibility that foreign contributions, which are wholly barred by law, might be directed to American elections through such shell companies.  Thus, Super PACS that have received contributions from LLCs and other shell entities constitute another source of “dark money.” Legislative Action to Bar Dark Money On March 8, 2019, the House of Representatives passed new prohibitions and disclosure requirements for political spending in the “Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act or 2019” or the “DISCLOSE Act,” as part of HR 1. The Senate version of the DISCLOSE Act is co-sponsored by 44 Democratic Senators but has not advanced in the legislative process. The bill also would impose additional restrictions on foreign nationals’ involvement in elections and election decision-making; it would expressly prohibit the use of foreign money in elections including ballot initiatives and referenda. It would require disclosure of the identity of contributors of $10,000 or more, including the direct and indirect beneficial owners of entities making such large contributions. Beyond Elections: Lobbying and Lawsuits Increasingly, political figures and legal scholars are advocating greater transparency for expenditures to influence legislative actions and to pursue strategic litigation to obtain court rulings, including Supreme Court decisions, favorable to the groups funding the litigation. Although legislative and administrative lobbying is subject to extensive federal and state disclosure requirements, the filings may be made in uninformative names of coalitions or associations that effectively shield the identities of the actual interested parties. A listing for, e.g., “Citizens for Healthcare” might appear to be a grassroots effort, but in fact may be funded by a single wealthy individual. A November 11, 2020, New York Times article reported that an organization named “Texans for Natural Gas,” which describes itself as a grassroots organization, was created, and is run by, a multinational business and consulting firm and is supported by three leading energy companies.  Depending on filing schedules for lobbying reports, some disclosures may occur “after the fact,” with officials left in the dark while weighing their decisions. Moreover, in many cases, articles and promotional materials are written carefully to qualify as “educational” material and thereby avoid lobbying characterization and registration requirements. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse highlighted concerns about strategic, or special interest, litigation during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. Senator Whitehouse, who has written about this subject for the Harvard Journal on Legislation, argued that targeted litigation sponsored by nonprofit organizations with overlapping directors, officers, and funding sources has resulted in activist judicial decisions favorable to corporate and anti-regulatory interests, some reaching the Supreme Court.  Jamaica elections 2020 - Elections Returns for September 3, 2020 A brief glance at the document indicated that it was clearly the party which had the superior funding which won, not necessarily the better candidates. One candidate in St. Thomas received $3.85mn and only spent $1,000. In terms of the Vazs the female part of that amalgamation was a first time candidate between them in total they spent $20mn. The Minister of Finance was not a first time a candidate received donations totalling almost $15mn and only spent approximately $5.5mn. The Minister of Security received no donations but spent approximately $8.5mn. The document begs a whole lot of questions. Why to date the Attorney General of Jamaica has not disclosed the amount of money she has received. However, we know that she spent a cool $10mn on her campaign if her figures are to be believed. No mystery there why the Jamaican Legislative system is in such shambles. Of interest also is Manchester Central. I am realizing that Rohan Chung was more than a distraction he was used to spend the money. I realize that in St. Ann North Western they wanted to annihilate Dayton Campbell, another independent used to boost the spending level. As such, persons are none too pleased that he has survived. I now need to know who the donors are. It is a classic case of dark money at work. Classic!! I need a breakdown of the donors!! The document is also incomplete in that it does not have the donations received by the Political Parties. REFERENCES: Dark Money - Michelle P. Scott Public Financing of Campaigns: Overview Campaign Finance Section 3: Key Election Process Categories