• Campaign finance regulations have not been very successful so far: Deshapriya
• Effective enforcement of regulations depends on active public participation: Ratnayake

Campaign finance regulations introduced during the past two national elections were designed to control excessive campaign spending and bring much-needed transparency to the electoral process. However, these well-intentioned laws have largely failed due to weak enforcement mechanisms, significant legal loopholes, and a concerning lack of political will to implement them properly.

While the Election Commission (EC) has established spending limits and required financial disclosures from candidates, compliance rates remain alarmingly low and enforcement actions are virtually non-existent. 

Accordingly, the campaign finance laws are once again in the spotlight with the upcoming Local Government Elections.

Laws ineffective 

Former Chairman of the EC Mahinda Deshapriya offered a candid and sobering evaluation of their effectiveness. “Honestly, they haven’t been very successful at all,” he admitted to The Sunday Morning, pointing to widespread non-compliance that had plagued recent elections.

In the last Parliamentary Elections alone, Deshapriya revealed that more than 50 candidates out of approximately 1,600 contestants had completely failed to submit their mandatory financial expenditure reports as required by law.

Noting an even more troubling trend among the candidates who submitted reports, he said: “There is absolutely no proper mechanism currently in place to verify whether the numbers they submit are accurate or truthful. The system allows anyone to submit any figure they choose without consequence because there is no meaningful scrutiny of these reports.”

Deshapriya identified several fundamental flaws in the current system that had rendered it largely ineffective. Firstly, he emphasised that the EC completely lacked both the legal authority and necessary resources to conduct proper audits of submitted financial reports. This glaring deficiency means candidates can submit fabricated or misleading numbers without fear of being caught or facing penalties.

Secondly, he criticised the current penalty structure as being far too lenient, noting that the three-year disqualification period for violations simply allowed offenders to sit out one election cycle before returning to contest again. 

Perhaps most significantly, Deshapriya highlighted the complete lack of transparency in campaign financing due to the absence of mandatory campaign bank accounts, which allowed untraceable cash transactions to continue dominating election spending.

To address these systemic problems, he strongly advocated implementing mandatory dedicated campaign bank accounts for all candidates, which would create a clear paper trail for all campaign-related financial transactions. 

However, he acknowledged facing significant resistance to such reforms from political stakeholders, noting: “Meaningful legal changes require sustained advocacy and political will that currently does not exist.”

The former Chairman of the EC also revealed that while his commission had proposed implementing random audits of financial reports of candidates, this suggestion had faced opposition from those who argued that the selection process for audits could be vulnerable to bias. 

Despite these challenges, Deshapriya maintained that some progress had been made, stating: “There are certainly many difficulties we still face, but establishing these regulations was an important first step that we needed to take. We have to start somewhere in reforming this system.”

EC issues in enforcement 

Meanwhile, Commissioner General of Elections Saman Sri Ratnayake emphasised that while the commission had established clear spending limits for campaigns, effective enforcement of these regulations ultimately depended heavily on active participation and vigilance of the general public.

“Citizens have a huge responsibility in ensuring adherence to these campaign finance laws,” he stated during discussions regarding enforcement challenges. 

Under the existing legal framework, all candidates are required to submit detailed financial statements accounting for their campaign expenditures by election day, with false declarations theoretically risking disqualification. However, Ratnayake conceded that the EC lacked both the capacity and authority to independently verify whether these submitted expense reports were complete or accurate.

Providing a concrete example to illustrate this enforcement gap, he said: “If a candidate organises a musical show during their campaign that costs Rs. 500,000 but conveniently omits this expense from their official financial report, we would have no way of knowing about this violation unless members of the public who attended the event or have knowledge of it come forward to file a formal complaint.”

This troubling reality was further underscored when Ratnayake revealed that despite the EC’s efforts to promote transparency by publishing all candidates’ financial statements online following the 2020 Parliamentary Elections, not a single complaint had been made about potential violations, highlighting a concerning level of public apathy towards campaign finance enforcement.

He further clarified the fundamental limitations of the EC’s current mandate regarding campaign finance oversight. 

“We cannot control campaign spending directly. That is simply not our legal mandate under the current system,” he explained. “Our role is limited to setting reasonable spending ceilings and collecting reports. If a candidate exceeds the established spending limits, citizens must take the initiative to notify either the Police or the EC before we can take any action.”

The Commissioner General also pointed out the practical challenges of scanning and uploading to the internet the financial statements of approximately 71,000 candidates at the Local Government Elections without proper staffing and technological support.

Commenting on solutions, Ratnayake stressed that the EC had been advocating necessary reforms since as early as 2010. 

“We don’t need to reinvent the wheel,” he noted pragmatically. “If the Government would simply act on the numerous recommendations already produced by various Parliamentary Select Committees and expert panels over the years, that would represent significant progress in strengthening our campaign finance system.” 

This statement reflects the frustration of election officials who have repeatedly identified solutions but continue to face political inertia when it comes to implementing meaningful reforms.

Need for campaign finance reforms

People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) Executive Director Rohana Hettiarachchi argued that the country’s current regulatory framework was “not just weak but easily circumvented by those with money and influence.” 

Speaking to The Sunday Morning, he stressed that “the main issue in Sri Lanka is not the absence of laws but their pathetic implementation,” pointing to glaring legal loopholes and the EC’s lack of genuine enforcement powers as fundamental flaws in the system.

Hettiarachchi outlined three crucial reforms that PAFFREL believes would dramatically improve the system. Firstly, he insisted that candidates who failed to submit their financial reports on time should face automatic disqualification, with only extremely limited exceptions such as hospitalisation. 

“The current process is absurdly bureaucratic,” he explained, adding: “Right now, when a candidate violates reporting rules, the EC must notify the Police, seek legal advice from the Attorney General’s Department, and then file cases through the courts. This entire cumbersome process could be replaced with automatic penalties that would save enormous amounts of time and Government resources.”

Secondly, Hettiarachchi advocated granting the EC direct oversight and monitoring powers, removing its current dependence on Police investigations that rarely materialised. 

The third proposal involves implementing strict contribution limits. “International best practices show that a single donor should never contribute more than 5% of a candidate’s total campaign funds. Without such limits, wealthy individuals and corporations essentially purchase political influence and end up controlling the representatives they helped elect,” he said. 

Hettiarachchi was particularly critical about the complete lack of proper auditing in the current system. “These financial reports are merely submitted, not scrutinised,” he said. “If these documents were actually audited properly, we would see several major political figures, including former ministers, being disqualified for blatant overspending.” 

He cited examples from recent elections, including one parliamentary candidate who had admitted in his own submitted report to exceeding spending limits yet faced no consequences whatsoever.

Similarly, during the last Presidential Election, numerous candidates had submitted incomplete or deliberately misleading financial statements without any repercussions. “The current three-year ban for violators is a joke,” Hettiarachchi said. “We propose extending this to at least seven years to create real accountability and deter future violations.”