Kenya's politics needs a clearer money trail

Every election in Kenya comes with a lot of money. We see it in rallies, vehicles, posters, handouts and now, increasingly, online. What we rarely see is the full trail behind it. Who put it there? Where did it come from? How much was spent? And what does it buy?

Money does more than pay for politics. It can determine who gets heard, who gets access and who gets a realistic chance to compete for power. Kenya is not without rules. The Election Campaign Financing Act regulates contributions and expenditure, while the Elections Act addresses practices such as the use of public resources and treating voters. The problem is whether those rules are strict enough, clear enough and enforceable enough to make political money visible and traceable.

The IEBC is now revisiting the campaign finance framework ahead of 2027. During public consultations on the draft regulations, IEBC Chairperson Erastus Ethekon said the objective was to ensure electoral outcomes are determined by the free will of voters rather than the disproportionate influence of financial resources.

That question is already visible in recent contests. Ahead of the Ol Kalou by-election, government officials highlighted development projects worth more than Sh10 billion in the constituency.

The government has a responsibility to build roads, provide water and deliver services even when an election is approaching. But when public spending becomes highly visible during an electoral contest, Kenyans are entitled to ask how such spending is being timed, presented and separated from political competition.

Another question we ask: who gets to compete in the first place?

The more expensive politics becomes, the greater the risk that leadership will reflect access to wealth rather than the diversity of the society being represented. Can a young person without wealthy networks raise enough money to run a serious campaign? Can a woman, a person with a disability, a minority or someone from a less wealthy community raise enough to remain competitive?

A democracy may formally give everyone the right to run for office. But if the cost of running becomes prohibitive, that right can exist largely on paper. Campaign finance is therefore also a question of political inclusion. If only those with substantial financial resources can compete effectively, our leadership may become less representative of the society it governs.

The challenge is becoming harder as political campaigning moves online. A message can reach millions of people without the public knowing who paid for it, how much was spent or who was targeted. If an advertisement reaches one million Kenyans, those are reasonable questions, not unreasonable demands.

Other democracies have chosen different ways to make political money more visible and constrained. Canada, for example, limits individual contributions to a registered federal party to C$1,775 in 2026 and restricts contributions to Canadian citizens and permanent residents. Its electoral system also publishes political-finance information.

Britain offers a different lesson. Reform UK recently received two £36 million donations within 48 hours, from crypto investors Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne. The donations were reported as lawful by the party, but their scale has renewed debate about the role of large private fortunes in political competition.

In the US, Donald Trump has proposed giving every American adult a $5,000 “dividend” if Republicans retain control of Congress. The proposal would require congressional approval and has been estimated to cost more than $1 trillion. Whatever view one takes of the proposal, it shows how directly financial benefits can become part of electoral politics.

Kenya does not need to copy any of these systems. But we should be asking what kind of political-finance regime we want before the 2027 contest becomes even more expensive. That means knowing who funds parties and candidates, where the money comes from, how much is spent, where it is spent and whether public resources are being used in ways that create an electoral advantage. It also means giving regulators the information, systems and enforcement powers needed to act.

This matters beyond elections. Kenya remains under increased monitoring by the Financial Action Task Force because of weaknesses in areas including beneficial ownership and financial intelligence. That does not mean political parties are financed with illicit money. It does, however, underline the importance of systems capable of establishing who ultimately controls and supplies financial resources.

There is a legitimate counterargument. Wealthy citizens have a right to support political parties and causes they believe in. A large donation is not automatically corruption, nor does it prove that a donor has bought political influence. Political parties need money to organise, communicate and compete. The same applies to public development. Government cannot stop building roads or providing services simply because an election is approaching.

The answer is not to make politics moneyless. It is to make political money visible, traceable and subject to rules that apply fairly. Before we debate who deserves political power in 2027, perhaps we should ask a simpler question: who is paying for the competition?

-Simplyhannahwanja@gmail.com