KANYADUDI: Will big money, business cartels influence 2027 election?

On the other side, the PNU brigade organised a Sh1 million per plate lunch at the Safari Park hotel. The event sold out, demonstrating that President Mwai Kibaki had the backing of the local corporate sector as well as Kikuyu old money. It was the first time presidential campaign fundraising became such a public spectacle in Kenya.

Given the intense rivalry between ODM and PNU leaders, particularly their flagbearers, Raila and Kibaki, these events became platforms for flexing financial muscle. The fundraising mirrored the style and character of campaigns in the United States, albeit without a legal framework to regulate such activities.

Since 2007, elections have evolved into highly competitive contests. While all electoral positions attract funding battles, presidential elections command the highest levels of financial mobilisation. Campaign finance includes all monetary and in-kind contributions and expenditures incurred by candidates, political parties, or their supporters for electioneering purposes.

Campaign finance regulation encompasses rules on contribution and expenditure limits, disclosure obligations and enforcement by oversight agencies. Globally, systems vary widely, and must be analysed within broader legal, political and cultural contexts. Interest in campaign finance has grown significantly in recent years, and its importance continues to rise.

Many countries have introduced regulations to promote fair competition and limit the influence of money in politics. These include rules on contributions, expenditure limits, disclosure requirements, enforcement mechanisms and sanctions. Broadly, they fall into three categories: sources of financing, campaigning, and reporting, oversight, and sanctions.

Campaign financing models differ across countries. The United States favours high-spending private donations and Super PACs, while Canada, Germany and Britain combine strict donation limits with public funding. While the US system has limited spending controls, countries such as Canada and Britain enforce strict caps.

The Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security has identified unregulated and opaque political financing as a major threat to electoral integrity in both emerging and established democracies. Citizens expect political parties to represent their interests, yet parties often become disproportionately responsive to their donors.

When corporations and wealthy individuals gain influence through large donations, public trust erodes and citizens feel marginalised. This is worsened by low participation in political parties, deepening public disengagement.

In recent years, concerns have also grown over the infiltration of transnational organised crime into politics. In regions such as Latin America and West Africa, opaque financing has enabled criminal networks to influence elected officials. This undermines democracy, governance and the rule of law, while also hindering economic development and poverty reduction.

In Kenya, there have been concerns that some politicians may have benefited, knowingly or unknowingly, from proceeds of crime. The rapid growth in campaign spending reinforces the perception that wealth buys political influence and undermines political equality. The misuse of state resources by incumbents further distorts the playing field and limits fair participation.

Kenya has taken steps to strengthen campaign finance regulation, primarily through the Election Campaign Financing Act (2013) and proposed amendments in 2024. These efforts aim to improve transparency, establish spending caps and enforce disclosure requirements.

Court rulings in 2022 affirmed that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission can set spending limits without parliamentary approval. This cleared the way for the agency to enforce regulations more effectively. IEBC is currently refining these rules to simplify compliance and enhance oversight ahead of the 2027 general election.

However, enforcement remains inconsistent, largely due to political resistance. Many politicians prefer opaque systems, making reform a contested process. Proposed measures include requiring candidates to establish campaign financing committees and disclose funding sources to avoid unregulated, “law of the jungle” financing.

Historically, campaign financing in Kenya has been shaped by shifting economic and political power. When President Daniel Moi came to power in 1978, he systematically dismantled the dominance of Kikuyu economic elites who had benefited from state patronage during Jomo Kenyatta’s presidency.

Moi weakened their financial institutions and businesses while promoting state-supported ventures among the Asian and Kalenjin communities. He also elevated loyalists within the civil service. By the time multiparty democracy returned in 1992, campaign financing reflected these realignments.

Kanu, under Moi, competed primarily with Ford Asili led by Kenneth Matiba, while Kibaki also drew support from established economic networks within his community. The Youth for Kanu exemplified the fusion of state patronage with emerging economic power blocs.

The economic downturn of the mid-1990s, followed years later by the effects of Covid-19, led to the exit of many Western multinational corporations from Kenya. This significantly reduced external financial influence in elections.

When Kibaki assumed power in 2003, he turned to China for development financing. Unlike Western actors, China focused on working with incumbent governments rather than influencing electoral outcomes. This shift partly explains the aggressive domestic fundraising seen in the 2007 election.

The trend persisted in subsequent elections, including the contests between Raila and Uhuru Kenyatta in 2013 and 2017. By 2022, fundraising had intensified further, with local business interests playing a central role after sections of Kikuyu old money shifted political allegiance.

With reduced corporate backing from multinational firms, candidates increasingly relied on local entrepreneurs and private businesses. This had immediate consequences. Following the 2022 election, the Kenya Kwanza government introduced measures to bring previously untaxed enterprises into the tax net.

As the country approaches the 2027 election, the landscape is shifting. Business cartels that once dominated political financing are no longer as powerful. Supporting presidential candidates has become a risky investment, with potential regulatory and financial repercussions.

Many businesses are now reconsidering the wisdom of mixing politics with enterprise. There is a growing preference for advocating stable economic policies rather than backing individual candidates. After all, economic policies affect all citizens equally.

Yet the temptation to align with potential winners remains strong. As always, the question persists: will holders of capital resist the urge to capture the state?