By: Sophia Kurniasari Purba
(Kepala Bagian Teknis Penyelenggaraan Pemilu dan Hukum
KPU Provinsi Jawa Barat)

It is widely known that many candidates overspend on election campaigns. Access to wealthy donors becomes essential, and campaign cash is often used to buy votes. A study shows that the practice of vote buying was ubiquitous in the legislative and presidential elections (Aspinal, 2014).

Although this research has also shown a slim chance of winning the race through vote buying, most candidates still resort to this strategy. As a result, candidates must raise large sums long before the campaign period begins.

This dynamic opens doors for affluent donors seeking to support candidates who can later protect their vested interests. Research shows that investors have material motives when they contribute to candidates. They want to exert political influence once their candidates win (Francia et al., 2003). Such contributions carry inherent corruption risks. Elected officials may become more responsive to big donors than to the public. This situation may undermine the spirit of democracy that is supposedly representative of the people's will.

Campaign finance reform is an urgent response to a system in crisis. Recent data shows that candidates need to spend up to Rp 80 billion to secure a seat in the parliamentary election. This has led to a composition in which 60 percent of legislative members have direct business affiliations (Kompas, 2024). All citizens may be equal before the law, but they do not enter the electoral race from the same starting line. The problem is not a lack of rules, but a failure of enforcement and oversight.

In Indonesia, the General Election Commission (KPU) appoints the public accountants to examine the campaign expenses based on the candidates’ formal report. By law, these accountants are not authorized to conduct an investigative audit. Consequently, auditors cannot trace the actual campaign spending from candidates. This loophole allows hidden money or unknown donations to flow unchecked. Campaign finance has a critical role in tracing the flow of money in politics. KPU’s commitment to transparency can be seen in its effort to publish the campaign contributions, spending, and audit results. However, these disclosures do not reflect actual campaign spending. For instance, in the 2024 election, candidates did not fully report on their social media advertising spending (Kompas 2023).

To level the playing field among candidates, KPU has established rules for partial public funding. It procures campaign materials such as banners, posters, and advertisements for political parties and candidates. But this funding only supplements the private funding. It does not replace the private contributions. The candidates still rely on large-scale contributors as their primary donors. This is the reason why New York City’s public matching fund offers a better path. New York City is built on a powerful independent enforcement body (The New York Campaign Finance Board), transparency through audited disclosures, and an incentive-based campaign funding that shifts candidates’ focus from a few big donors to many small constituents.

How does it work?

To qualify for the public matching funds program in the New York City mayoral election, a person must raise at least USD 250,000 contributions from a minimum 1,000 NYC residents to become an official candidate. The candidates have to solicit at least USD 10 from each contributor. Donations above USD 250 are still permitted, but the excess does not count toward the minimum requirement. Once a candidate qualifies, the government matches each eligible contribution at an 8-to-1 rate. For instance, a USD 50 donation becomes USD 450 for the campaign. To participate in the public matching funds program, the candidates must complete and sign a certification form, which serves as an official legal contract.

By signing this contract, the candidate agrees to comply with the New York City campaign finance program. It means that they are prohibited from raising money from big companies, non-residents, or other political action committees, and agree to full financial transparency and are audited by the Campaign Finance Board. Participants are listed publicly by the New York Campaign Finance Board. Instead of focusing on big donors, this formula will incentivize candidates to seek smaller contributions from a greater number of contributors. This public funding will encourage candidates to talk directly to voters, rather than solely relying on surveys. Consequently, voters become better informed, gain meaningful influence over who 2 gets elected, and open doors for citizens who do not have access to wealthy networks. (Malbin et al.).

To enforce this public matching fund, there is an independent agency that serves to give more information to voters, granting public funds to candidates, and is authorized to conduct investigations on campaign spending. Established in 1988, this agency is mandated to conduct field investigations, desk and field audits, the issuance of subpoenas, the taking of sworn testimony, request documents, serve interrogatories, and other methods of information gathering (CFB rules). The CFB also provides access to training, resources, and one-on-one guidance, helping candidates to comply with the laws.

The Campaign Finance Board provides access to its database through the Follow the Money search tool. This tool gives detailed information about campaign donations and spending. This information allows citizens to trace candidates’ supporters in campaigns and observe how these donors affect future policy. This system does not only exist on paper. Early this year, New York City inaugurated its mayor: Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim, Ugandan-born son of immigrants who was never expected to win. His victory was supported by roughly 18,000 individual donors across the city (NY1.com). This is what public matching funds can achieve; they open doors for ordinary citizens to run for office.

The comparison between Indonesia and New York City highlights key differences in campaign finance design and enforcement. Indonesia’s public funding is limited to non-cash subsidies provided after candidate registration, while New York City enforces strict caps and robust oversight. In Indonesia, candidates remain dependent on large donors and informal financing networks. In contrast, New York City’s matching fund reshapes campaign behavior by rewarding small donations, increasing transparency, and strengthening public accountability. Why Public Funding Matters According to Briffault (1999), public funding is more effective than private funding at promoting competitive elections, narrowing the impact of financial inequality on the electoral process, and reducing the influence of large campaign contributors.

3. Of course, public funding has consequences. Candidates would be compelled to report all of their expenditures in order to avoid the sanction of disqualification. Fully public funding also established a fixed limit on total campaign spending, serving as a check on excessive campaign expenses. Auditors also have a more powerful role in investigating the candidates’ campaign cash since the money comes from the state budget. Public funding will encourage all qualified citizens, regardless of their social and economic background, to run for public office. We should consider public funding as an alternative to release candidates from wealthy donors’ tentacles. Hopefully, this money with no strings attached can restore public trust in our democracy. When it costs a fortune to run, elections cannot truly be free. It is time to remove the barrier, not for the wealthy, but for everyone else. The views expressed in the article are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of institutions with which the author may be associated.

The writer is a PRESTASI-USAID Awardee 2013 who earned a master's degree in Elections and Campaign Management at Fordham University, New York.