No! to amending constitution to regulate election campaign finances-HoA Report
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.
.jpg)
.png)
Follow Us On
13 Responses to “No! to amending constitution to regulate election campaign finances-HoA Report”
Politicians serve themselves first.
We just ready to share a "sheet a licks." We don't care how much money being spread around. Those who can handle the blows and survive will make up the government moving forward. We need the best and the strongest to handle and maneuver these uncertain times we living in, in our country and in the world. Take it as your first test for endurance and resilience. We have no more time for play, play, politics.