Political parties have raised concerns over the proposed campaign finance rules, questioning how the regulations will affect their operations ahead next year’s election.
The submissions, contained in an IEBC report, reveal disagreements over when campaign spending should be counted and how parties and candidates should account for money.
The political outfits also differed with the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission on the extent of the latter’s powers to investigate and sanction violations.
The governing United Democratic Alliance (UDA) questioned the legal scope of the proposed regulations, reporting requirements and safeguards during investigations.
The Orange Democratic Movement, meanwhile, challenged the period within which campaign expenditure should be accounted for.
The party argued that the rules do not adequately address delayed nominations, court disputes and postponed by-elections.
The submissions are part of public consultations on the Election Campaign Financing Regulations, 2026, and proposed spending limits for candidates and political parties contesting the election.
UDA challenged provisions it said could allow the commission to introduce new legal obligations through administrative directives.
The party argued that delegated legislation should not be used to create substantive obligations beyond those authorised by the parent law.
It wanted directives restricted to administrative implementation.
IEBC maintained it has discretion to issue directives and guidelines, including modifying forms where necessary to implement the campaign funding law.
UDA also questioned the sanctions provided for non-compliance, arguing that they should not exceed or bypass those in the substantive campaign financing law. IEBC, in response, denied any overreach.
UDA further argued that reporting obligations imposed on candidates and political parties could be duplicative.
It proposed consolidating reporting at the party expenditure committee level, rather than requiring separate reports from parties and candidates.
The commission said parties would report expenditure relating to candidates they sponsored.
Candidates who financed their campaigns fully or partly would still be required to submit expenditure reports to IEBC and copy their parties.
UDA also challenged quarterly reporting requirements, asking that they be consistent with the parent law.
On investigations, UDA argued that the commission’s audit and investigative powers lacked express procedural safeguards. It called for provisions guaranteeing notice and the right to be heard.
UDA also challenged the ban on foreign contributions, recommending that foreign contributions be expressly prohibited under the regulations.
The commission welcomed the proposal to the extent that it was consistent with the law.
ODM, for its part, focused on the definition of campaign expenditure and the period within which parties and candidates must account for their spending.
The party argued that ordinary political party activities like civic education, campaign support, and administrative support funded through the Political Parties Fund should be exempted.
ODM also said the proposed expenditure period did not adequately account for delayed party nominations, court disputes and postponed by-elections.
It argued that the seven-day period allowed for financial reconciliation was insufficient and proposed that the expenditure period for a by-election begin upon publication of the election programme.
The party also wanted the reporting deadline extended to at least 14 days after the declaration of results.
The commission defended the existing approach, saying it was intended to capture campaign-related political activities undertaken by aspirants before party nominations, particularly those sponsored by political parties.
Excluding that period, it said, would undermine the objective of comprehensively regulating campaign expenditure.
ODM further proposed that an authorised person be designated as the sole legally accountable officer for campaign finance compliance, with any expenditure committee serving only an advisory role.
IEBC rejected that approach, saying candidates needed both authorised persons and expenditure committees. It said authorised persons could form part of the campaign expenditure committee.
The proposed spending limits also drew criticism from smaller parties, with some questioning the methodology used to calculate the ceilings and whether the figures reflected the cost of campaigning in different electoral areas.
The Progressive Party of Kenya questioned the proposed presidential spending ceiling of Sh4.44 billion.
It argued that the figure was derived by averaging estimates for counties, constituencies and wards without adequately explaining the methodology.
It also sought publication of the full model, including its weights and formulas, and clarification of the population and land-area data used.
The party questioned why governors, senators and county woman representatives contesting in the same county should face a uniform county-level ceiling despite differences in the scale of their campaigns.
It also raised concerns about the proposed Sh11.8 billion transport ceiling, which it said accounted for 67 per cent of the party’s total spending limit.
The party called for a lower transport ceiling, clearer spending categories and receipt-based disclosure. It also sought a method for valuing and disclosing in-kind contributions.
The commission also said the regulations already provided for the value of in-kind contributions to be included in expenditure limits. It rejected calls to cap self-financing, saying the law did not provide for such a limit.
The Coalition of Homa Bay Organisations on Governance Oversight argued that the proposed limits were too high and disconnected from economic realities.
It proposed a baseline of Sh10 million per constituency, Sh3 million per ward, Sh30 million per county, Sh100 million for presidential campaigns and Sh500 million for political parties nationally.
IEBC rejected the proposed figures.
Other parties raised concerns about the administrative burden of complying with the regulations, particularly for organisations with limited resources.
Ukweli Party supported the proposed reporting requirements and the data-based approach to setting spending limits.
However, it called for simpler procedures and standardised templates to help parties track contributions from single sources.
It also warned that administrative and compliance costs could disproportionately affect parties with limited resources.
The party proposed practical training, guidance and simple digital tools, including support for tracking fundraising contributions.
The Republican Liberty Party and other contributors also raised concerns about reporting obligations, donor disclosure, audit costs and the protection of personal information.
Some argued that the rules required sensitive details from contributors while promising public disclosure of donor identities and amounts without sufficiently clear data-protection standards.
IEBC said it was bound by the Constitution and the provisions of the IEBC Act governing the processing of personal data.
Other proposals were rejected where IEBC said they conflicted with the campaign finance law or would undermine its objective of regulating expenditure comprehensively.
The resulting regulations and spending limits were gazetted on August 7 ahead of the general election.
