Political finance accountability and
reform has emerged as a new area of democracy development programming
by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), political reformers, academics,
and bilateral assistance agencies that have traditionally assisted or
funded elections and political process programming. Evidence of this
interest is demonstrated by funding initiatives from the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department for Foreign
International Development (DFID) as well as programming initiatives from
such NGOs as the Carter Center and the Open Society Institute. Inter-governmental
organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and International
IDEA are also developing programming in this topical area. In keeping
with the trend IFES ongoing work with Election Management Bodies (EMBs),
civil society organizations, and in anti-corruption work, political finance
has emerged as a program priority.
The intention of political finance programming is six
fold: 1) to introduce political finance reforms into legislation and
practices of public agencies or to reform existing legislation and practice;
2) if political finance regulations exist, to enhance the enforcement
of these regulations; 3) to strengthen the capacity of civil society
organizations to monitor and report on political finance activities;
4) to conduct civic education programs to enhance the public’s
knowledge about political finance activities; 5) to develop methodologies
and standards and to conduct research on political finance topics to
deepen the information resources and knowledge base on this subject;
6) to help political parties develop diversified and transparent sources
of funding and improve standards of party and campaign finance.
Program Rationale
IFES programming addresses seven gaps in political finance process that can
be identified:
The Standards Gap
There is a wide divergence among countries and regions in legislative and regulatory
approaches to political finance enforcement and transparency. Global baseline
standards have still not been established regardless of some initial attempts
by different international organizations (e.g. the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe and the Council of Europe).
The Information Gap
Resources are required to access and analyze the data collected by reporting
and disclosure entities. Although this source data may be available through
government-operated records, its transfer to the NGO community or the academic
community is not automatic or free.
The Capacity Gap
Because of the nascence of political finance regulation and reform, the governmental,
non-governmental, and academic actors are often ill prepared to fulfill their
statutory or charter responsibilities in administration, monitoring, and
enforcement creating a climate of breakdown, ineffectiveness, and permissiveness.
The Monitoring and Oversight Gap
Political finance monitoring groups such as Transparency International exist
and use often limited available information and monitoring techniques to
oversee and report on political account activity. However, such monitoring
of political finance reports and activities requires skills that few have
and are not traditionally a part of election observation missions. Members
of the media and monitoring organizations require training in auditing techniques
and tools to identify and conduct journalistic investigations of reporting
discrepancies and other issue areas and to provide long-term comparative
analysis.
The Transnational Gap
There is currently no systematic effort to monitor, analyze, and develop enforcement
mechanisms to retard the impact of cross-border political finance activity.
Criminal interests that can bankroll political campaigns or establish their
own political parties with anonymity may particularly expose small and weak
states with inexpensive but non-transparent electoral processes to take-over.
The Advocacy Gap
While limited media reporting, organizational monitoring and academic analyzes
exist, little effort is made by in-country groups to transform this information
into meaningful and informed change. Government, media, and civil society actors
often fail to share information nor do they effectively utilize available information.
When reform does occur, it often fails to take into account the information
needed to affect real lasting change.
IFES Program Response
IFES’ Money & Politics (MAP) and Training
in Detection and Enforcement (TIDE) Programs encourage accountability of
elected officials, candidates, and political parties and organizations through
legal and procedural reform, information technology, training, and public information
that promotes (a) the transparency of publicly-disclosed, detailed, and accurate
political finance information and (b) accuracy of the information through monitoring,
enforcement, and oversight (c) openness and accountability of political process.
IFES’ partners in the MAP and TIDE Programs include
political finance regulatory agencies such as election management bodies,
government auditors and oversight bodies, legislators and other politicians,
media, watchdog NGOs, and academics. Each Program is grounded in scientific
research, analysis, and performance monitoring and evaluation.
IFES has developed a unique instrument for tracking
and analyzing the flow of money in politics. The IFES MAP Database is
easily adapted for use by government bodies and NGOs. Accessible on the
Internet, the Database brings detailed information to the general public.
With appropriate legal and procedural reforms, oversight training and
education, and tools such as the Database, the MAP Program will increase
transparency and accountability while reducing the possibility for political
corruption.
This website provides information on the MAP Program
and resources on political finance. |
