Possible increases in how much political candidates can spend on their campaigns and closer scrutiny of their pre-election spending are among proposed changes to the Elections Act.
Elections Supervisor Wesley Howell told the Cayman Compass last week that the proposed changes are expected to head to Parliament soon and are aimed at not only updating the law to address issues with campaign financing, but also holding those who seek office, even unsuccessfully, to account.
Currently, candidates are allowed to spend up to $40,000 between Nomination Day and Election Day – a period of at least six weeks. That amount is under revision in the proposed revisions to the law, and may be increased to take into account inflation, which has resulted in a rise in prices for such items as printing services and advertising for candidates.
Howell said the $40,000 figure was set almost a decade ago.
A new figure has not been finalised, he said, and the Economic and Statistics Office is currently assisting with the formulation of a new spending limit, which will be based on its data.
Penalties for unsuccessful candidates
Also included in the planned update are changes to pave the way for authorities to investigate and penalise unsuccessful candidates who fail to produce campaign expense reports.
“Currently, if you are not a sitting Member of Parliament, there [are] no penalties in the law for a non-report,” Howell said. “All we can do is name and shame at that point.
“But it’s important [to have these reports] because, even if persons aren’t successful in winning a seat, they can influence the outcome of an election.”
Successful candidates are not allowed to take their seat or vote in Parliament until their expense reports are submitted. They are also penalised with a fine for each day they fail to produce their reports.
Currently, candidates are required to submit a return of all expenses incurred by themselves or on their behalf to the election supervisor within 35 days of an election.
Howell said, to date, there are still several former candidates whose expense reports remain outstanding from the 2021 general election, and some even as far back as 2017.
All current sitting MPs have filed their reports, he said.
Back in 2021, an ‘Election Expert Mission’ from the British Islands and the Mediterranean Region identified the lack of transparency in election campaign financing as one of the key areas for growth highlighted by their report.
Howell says the pending legislative changes are based on this and other reports on Cayman’s election process.
Pre-election spending
The proposed amendments to the law will also address the period of pre-election spending, so that items or services that are paid for before Nomination Day would be included in the mandatory expense report.
“By specifying accrual accounting, what we’re hoping to do is that even if folks pre-pay for services, be it adverts in the newspaper or online or T-shirts, if those goods or services are used between the period of Nomination Day and General Election Day, then they ought to be reported on, at the value that they are paid for,” Howell said.
In 2017, he said, the Office of Auditor General took a look at the campaign finance returns from the candidates and asked some of the media houses at the time to report costs of advertising for candidates.
He said a difference in advertising costs was uncovered in that exercise.
“In gross numbers, what the spend was on political campaign ads and the spend that was reported by the media houses was way more than was reported by the candidates,” he said.
Making these law changes, he said, would be a “good win” in relation to having transparent campaign financing, which “the public can take confidence in seeing reports that match up with what the spending has been”.
He said it is hard to determine pre-election spending when looking at candidates who are working MPs or just “generous individuals” who are giving of their time in general versus what they do during the campaign period.
He pointed to one candidate who had to cease charity work at a food bank when he contested an election as he could have run afoul of treating rules.
Under the law, it is an offence to pay for or provide any food, drink with the intent of influencing a voter.
Only the candidates’ spending between Nomination Day and Election Day are required to be reported under the existing legislation.
Howell said the goal is to get the legislative changes through by April or May, as best practice suggests that no major changes to election laws should be implemented under a year before an election – which is expected to be held in May next year.
Howell is advising prospective candidates to focus on keeping good records and receipts and ensure that those working within campaign operations are also turning in their receipts.
“If you personally don’t pay for something, but somebody does it on your behalf, you’re also obligated under the current law to report those, and, hopefully, we get that accrual accounting in, so we can get those [rules] much clearer, and everybody will be operating at the same reporting level,” he said.
Transparent process
Howell said, once the legislative changes are approved in Parliament, those contesting the 2025 polls will be subject to penalties if they fail to file expenses for their campaigns – regardless of whether they are elected or not.
“Currently, there’s a dollar penalty for each day that somebody sits as a Member of Parliament without turning in their campaign finance report. So, we could do that same penalty for persons who are non-sitting members after the submission date is passed,” he said, adding that, right now, “there is no teeth in the law” for this.
Political candidates can spend up to $40,000 on their political campaigns and must account for their expenditure.
They have to submit a return of all expenses incurred by or on behalf of the candidate to the election supervisor within 35 days of the election. Any campaign expense of $30 or more must include the particulars and a receipt.
Howell said other changes to the Election Law will include the introduction of an appeals process for questions on candidate eligibility.
“What we’re seeking to introduce is an appeal stage to that [registration process] so it goes to Court of Appeal [and] the Grand Court ruling isn’t the final [say]. So there’s a sort of three judge panel that will then go to town and review that and ultimately be then the final decision maker,” Howell added.
He said he would also like to see some changes around the registration process and that the voter’s ID card being streamlined with an expiration date for use as an official ID for Know Your Customer (KYC) processes.
Related Videos
