For decades, elections have been dominated by speculation over who spent the most, who bankrolled whom, and whether financial muscle ultimately decided electoral outcomes. The introduction of the Regulation of Election Expenditure Act, No. 3 of 2023, was intended to replace speculation with transparency. It was a landmark reform that finally brought campaign finance within a legal framework after decades of regulatory absence.
Now, the first comprehensive assessment of that law's implementation has arrived. Conducted by researcher, elections analyst and civil society advocate specialising in democratic reform and electoral processes, Manjula Gajanayake, and published by Transparency International Sri Lanka (TISL), the report offers both encouragement and caution. It concludes that while the new legal framework has undoubtedly improved transparency, it remains undermined by poor disclosure practices, weak enforcement powers and inadequate public access to campaign finance information. That assessment deserves serious attention.
The report represents the first systematic examination of thousands of financial returns submitted by candidates and political parties following the 2024 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections. It is an important milestone because campaign finance transparency cannot be judged merely by whether forms are submitted. The true test lies in whether those disclosures allow voters, regulators and the public to understand where political money comes from, how it is spent and whether the law is being obeyed.
On that score, the findings present a mixed picture.
The relatively high compliance rate demonstrates that political actors are beginning to adapt to the new legal environment. The fact that more than 8,400 financial returns were analysed reflects a significant cultural shift from an era when campaign spending was largely opaque. The report also notes examples of comparatively detailed disclosures by some parties, demonstrating that meaningful reporting is possible when there is genuine commitment.
Yet transparency is not measured by the number of documents submitted. It is measured by the quality of the information they contain.
The report identifies recurring weaknesses that limit meaningful scrutiny. Many returns were incomplete, inconsistent or failed to adequately identify the original sources of campaign funding. In several instances, supporting documentation was insufficient, while the separation between candidate expenditure and party expenditure remained blurred. Such shortcomings make it difficult to establish the true flow of campaign finances or determine whether spending limits have genuinely been respected.
Even more troubling is the institutional weakness identified by the report. Under the current legal framework, the Election Commission's role is largely administrative. It receives declarations, sets expenditure limits and refers cases of non-compliance to the Police. What it cannot effectively do is independently investigate the accuracy of the information submitted.
That is perhaps the report's most significant finding.
Transparency without verification is little more than paperwork. If financial declarations cannot be independently scrutinised, dishonest reporting carries relatively little risk. A regulatory system that depends almost entirely on voluntary compliance cannot fully achieve its objective of promoting accountability.
This is why one of the report's most important recommendations deserves urgent legislative consideration. The Election Commission should be granted stronger investigative powers to examine campaign finance disclosures, verify supporting evidence and pursue suspected violations directly.
Such authority would fundamentally change the nature of campaign finance regulation in Sri Lanka. Rather than acting as a passive recipient of declarations, the Commission could become an active guardian of electoral integrity. It would also strengthen public confidence that financial disclosures are not simply filed away but are capable of meaningful examination.
Equally important is the report's criticism of public accessibility. Campaign finance returns are available only for a limited inspection period before becoming difficult to obtain. In an age where governments increasingly promote digital governance and open data, such restrictions appear outdated.
Election finance information should not be treated as an archive accessible only to determined researchers. It should be readily available to every voter through a searchable online database. Citizens should be able to examine campaign income, expenditure and donors with the same ease that they access election results.
Public scrutiny is often a more powerful deterrent than legal sanctions alone. When voters, journalists, researchers and civil society organisations can freely analyse campaign finances, political parties have a greater incentive to maintain high standards of disclosure.
The report also reminds us that campaign finance regulation is not simply an election issue. Political money flows long before nomination papers are handed over and continues well after polling day. Limiting oversight to the campaign period leaves significant gaps in accountability. A broader framework governing political finance throughout the electoral cycle should therefore remain part of Sri Lanka's long-term reform agenda.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of this report lies in establishing a baseline, and not merely exposing shortcomings. Policymakers have before them a detailed roadmap identifying weaknesses and practical solutions.
The challenge now rests with Parliament and the Government. Passing a law was an important first step. Ensuring that the law works is the far more difficult task.