The Lisa E. Penn-Lettsome Constitutional Review Commission recommended amending the Constitution to require a regime regulating election expenses and campaign finance, with detailed rules to be set out in legislation. Photo: Internet Source

While Elected Members supported regulation of campaign financing, they did not support any proposal to constitutionalise that requirement. Photo: VINO

The Committee of the Whole House recommended that election campaign finance regulation be established through ordinary legislation. Photo: VINO/File

However, the Committee of the Elected Members of the House of Assembly (HoA) did not accept this recommendation and proposed an alternative.

While Elected Members supported regulation of campaign financing, they did not support any proposal to constitutionalise that requirement. Therefore, the team going to London to negotiate will not propose a constitutional amendment.

Alternative Recommendation

The Committee of the Whole House recommended that election campaign finance regulation be established through ordinary legislation, with the detailed design of the regime — including thresholds, disclosure formats, reporting timelines, auditing, enforcement mechanisms, and sanctions — determined within the legislative framework.

Rationale of elected members

Members supported the objective of transparency and fairness in campaign financing. However, they considered the Penn-Lettsome proposal to embed a constitutional requirement for such a regime unnecessary, given that the Legislature already has the power to enact campaign finance legislation.

Members also considered that the effectiveness of any regulatory regime depends on technical design choices that require practical flexibility and the capacity to be refined over time in light of experience.

Constitutionalising the requirement would add rigidity without a corresponding benefit, the legislators opined.