# DFI Special Research Request: Public Funding for Campaigns Assessment

**Country to be assessed:** [INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE]

## Introduction to the Task

This research request focuses on collecting precise data needed to score the "Public Funding for Campaigns" component within the Democratic Fitness Indicator (DFI) Elections category. 

Your task is to answer specific classification questions that will determine the country's score in this component. Collect only information directly relevant to these questions - no additional context or analysis is needed.

> IMPORTANT: This assessment applies ONLY to national-level elections (presidential and parliamentary/congressional). Do not include data for local, regional, or non-national elections.

## Data Requirements: Legal Framework and Recent Implementation

For a comprehensive assessment of public funding for campaigns, researchers must collect both:

### 1. Current Legal Framework (Required)
- Complete documentation of all relevant laws and regulations
- Public funding formulas and mechanisms as defined in legislation
- Theoretical maximums and limitations established by law
- Eligibility criteria and thresholds as legally defined

### 2. Recent National Election Data (Required where available)
- Implementation data from the most recent complete national election cycle
- Actual public funding amounts disbursed
- Real spending figures for verification
- Evidence of how the system functions in practice

**Rationale:** The legal framework provides the theoretical maximum public funding potential, while recent election data shows how the system actually functions in practice. Where discrepancies exist between law and practice, both should be documented with priority given to actual implementation for scoring purposes.

**When answering research questions:**
- First establish what is legally possible under the current framework
- Then verify if/how these provisions were implemented in recent elections
- Document any significant gaps between legal provisions and actual implementation
- When calculating percentages, use actual implementation data when available
- If recent implementation data is unavailable, clearly note this limitation and use theoretical calculations based on the legal framework

This approach ensures the assessment captures both the formal structure of public funding and its practical reality, providing a more accurate measure of the democratic fitness of the campaign finance system.

## Core Classification Question

### Legal Maximum
What is the highest percentage of campaign/party expenditures that can legally be covered by public funds according to the country's laws and regulations?

#### 1.1 Hybrid Public Funding Systems Research

When researching public funding for election campaigns, pay special attention to countries with multiple funding mechanisms. For such systems:

1. **Identify All Components**: Document each distinct funding mechanism that exists, such as:
   - Flat Rate Systems (direct allocations based on votes)
   - Matching Systems (matching private donations)
   - Reimbursement Systems (refunding campaign expenses)

2. **Document Each Component**:
   - Cite specific legal provisions establishing each funding mechanism
   - Document the specific rules and qualification criteria for each
   - Note any available data on actual implementation



### 1.2: Regulatory Environment Classification

**Objective**
Determine the appropriate denominator for calculating public funding percentages based on whether the country operates under a spending cap system or unlimited spending system.

### Required Documentation

```
REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT CLASSIFICATION:

a) Legal Spending Limit Assessment:
"[Direct quote of any campaign spending limit provisions for NATIONAL elections only]"
SOURCE: [Law name, Article/Section]

Do legal spending limits exist that effectively cap total campaign expenditures at the NATIONAL level? [YES/NO]

If YES (For Countries with Spending Caps):
   Maximum permitted expenditure formula: [Quote legal formula]
   Maximum permitted amount: [Calculate using recent election data]
   Applies to: [Presidential/Parliamentary/Both elections]
   SOURCE: [Law name, Article/Section]

   DENOMINATOR DETERMINATION: Maximum permitted expenditure
   CALCULATION METHOD: [Explain calculation with numbers]

If NO (For Countries with Unlimited Spending):
   Rationale for unlimited spending classification: [Explain lack of effective caps]
   
   Total actual campaign spending data:
   - Election cycle: [Most recent complete cycle]
   - Official candidate/party spending: [Amount]
   - Outside/independent spending: [Amount]
   - Estimated undisclosed spending: [Amount if available]
   - TOTAL CAMPAIGN SPENDING: [Sum of all channels]
   SOURCE: [Electoral commission/Academic study/etc.]

   DENOMINATOR DETERMINATION: Actual total campaign spending
   CALCULATION METHOD: [Explain compilation with numbers]

FINAL DENOMINATOR VALUE: [Amount with currency]
```

### 1.3: Practical Scope for Data Collection

**Objective**
Establish a consistent approach for determining which candidates and parties to include when calculating campaign spending totals for NATIONAL elections, particularly for countries with numerous candidates/parties.

### Required Documentation

```
CAMPAIGN SPENDING SCOPE DETERMINATION:

NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS:
Candidates included in analysis:
□ Major party nominees (parties with >5% in previous national election)
□ Third-party candidates receiving >1% of vote
□ Top 5 candidates by vote share
□ Other scope: [Explain with justification]

List of included candidates:
1. [Candidate name] - [Party] - [Vote %]
2. [Candidate name] - [Party] - [Vote %]
[etc.]

NATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY/CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS:
Parties included in analysis:
□ Parties receiving >5% of votes in national elections
□ Parties holding at least one seat in national parliament
□ Parties exceeding public funding threshold for national elections
□ Top 5 parties by vote share in national elections
□ Other scope: [Explain with justification]

List of included parties:
1. [Party name] - [Vote %] - [Seats won]
2. [Party name] - [Vote %] - [Seats won]
[etc.]

PRIMARY ELECTIONS (if applicable for national offices):
□ Candidates receiving >5% in any national primary contest
□ Top 5 fundraisers per party in national primaries
□ Not applicable
□ Other scope: [Explain with justification]

SCOPE JUSTIFICATION:
[Brief explanation of why this scope is appropriate for the country's electoral system]

Estimated percentage of total votes covered by this scope: [X%]
Estimated percentage of total spending covered by this scope: [X%]
```

## Country-Specific Guidance Examples

### Countries with Spending Caps (e.g., Poland, South Korea, Japan)

For countries with clear legal limits on national campaign spending:
1. Identify the specific legal provisions establishing these caps for national elections
2. Calculate the maximum permitted expenditure for national campaigns based on these provisions
3. Determine the maximum public funding available for national elections
4. Calculate: (Maximum public funding ÷ Maximum permitted expenditure) × 100%

**Example - Poland:**
- Legal spending limits based on number of voters
- Include all parties exceeding the 3% threshold (public funding eligibility)
- Use maximum permitted expenditure as denominator
- Compare with maximum possible public funding as numerator

### Countries with Unlimited Spending (e.g., United States)

For countries without effective caps on national campaign spending:
1. Document the absence of meaningful spending limits for national elections
2. Collect data on actual spending from the most recent national election cycle
3. Include all major spending channels for national elections (official, party, outside groups)
4. Calculate: (Actual public funding ÷ Total actual spending) × 100%

**Example - United States:**
- Document lack of effective spending caps and recent Supreme Court decisions
- Include Democratic and Republican nominees plus third parties >1%
- Collect spending data across all channels (FEC filings, outside spending)
- Use actual total spending as denominator

### Mixed or Ambiguous Systems (e.g., Germany)

For countries with partial caps or complex systems:
1. Determine if there are effective spending caps in practice
2. If effective caps exist, use maximum permitted approach
3. If no effective caps, use actual spending approach
4. Document reasoning for classification decision

**Example - Germany:**
- Analyze whether the relative limits and matching system create de facto caps
- Include all parties represented in the Bundestag plus those exceeding 0.5%
- Determine appropriate denominator based on regulatory analysis

## Data Collection Checklist

Before finalizing your research, verify:
- [ ] Country correctly classified as spending cap or unlimited spending system for national elections
- [ ] Appropriate denominator clearly identified and justified for national-level campaigns
- [ ] Consistent scope of candidates/parties applied for national elections only
- [ ] All relevant spending channels for national campaigns documented (for unlimited systems)
- [ ] Maximum permitted national campaign expenditure calculated accurately (for capped systems)
- [ ] National-level public funding mechanisms fully documented
- [ ] Actual implementation data for national elections included when available
- [ ] Calculations shown with specific numbers for national-level data
- [ ] Sub-national, regional, and local election data excluded from all calculations

---

## Implementation Notes

- Focus ONLY on national-level elections (presidential and parliamentary/congressional) per DFI scope
- Exclude all data related to local, regional, municipal, or sub-national elections
- For federal systems, document whether national-level spending caps and public funding apply to federal elections only
- When electoral system underwent recent changes, prioritize the most recent complete national election under current rules
- For countries with irregular election schedules, use the most recent presidential and parliamentary national elections, even if they occurred in different years

## Essential Data Requirements

For accurate classification, research must include:

1. **Specific percentage calculations** for major parties, presented in a clear table format showing:
   - Total campaign income/expenditure figures
   - Public funding amounts received
   - Calculated percentage (public funding ÷ total expenditure × 100%)

2. **Primary source citations** for all financial data (e.g., official electoral commission reports, government financial disclosures, parliamentary records)

3. **Calculation methodology** explaining how percentages were derived, including:
   - For countries with spending caps: Whether maximum permitted expenditure was used as denominator
   - For countries with unlimited spending: How total actual spending was calculated

4. **Data recency** information showing which election cycle(s) the financial data covers

## Example of Required Format:

```
PUBLIC FUNDING PERCENTAGE DATA:

[COUNTRY NAME] - [ELECTION CYCLE]

| Party | Public Funding | Total Campaign Expenditure | Public Funding % |
|-------|---------------|-----------------------------|------------------|
| Party A | $XX million | $XX million | XX.X% |
| Party B | $XX million | $XX million | XX.X% |
| Party C | $XX million | $XX million | XX.X% |

Source: [Specific citation with URL or document reference]
Calculation method: [Brief explanation of methodology]
```

## Clarification Note: Public Funding Assessment for Parliamentary vs. Presidential Systems

When conducting DFI public funding assessments, researchers must clearly address both parliamentary and presidential elections where applicable, or explain the system's structure if one type doesn't exist.

## Presidential Election Considerations

For countries with direct presidential elections, research must:

1. **Explicitly document the public funding system for presidential campaigns**, including:
   - Specific funding formulas or amounts available to presidential candidates
   - Eligibility requirements for presidential campaign public funding
   - Spending limits applicable to presidential races

2. **Calculate separate public funding percentages** for presidential elections:
   ```
   PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FUNDING DATA:
   
   [COUNTRY NAME] - [ELECTION CYCLE]
   
   | Candidate | Public Funding | Total Campaign Expenditure | Public Funding % |
   |-----------|---------------|----------------------------|------------------|
   | Candidate A | $XX million | $XX million | XX.X% |
   | Candidate B | $XX million | $XX million | XX.X% |
   | Candidate C | $XX million | $XX million | XX.X% |
   
   Source: [Specific citation]
   Calculation method: [Methodology explanation]
   ```

3. **Document coverage determination** for DFI scoring:
   - Both election types covered: Full score applies
   - Only one election type covered: 50% score reduction applies

## Parliamentary Systems Without Direct Presidential Elections

For parliamentary systems like Japan where the head of government is selected from parliament:

1. **Explicitly state that direct presidential elections do not exist**
2. **Explain the governmental structure** (e.g., "Japan operates under a parliamentary system where the Prime Minister is chosen from among Diet members")
3. **Clarify how national leadership is determined** (e.g., "typically the leader of the majority party")
4. **Confirm that the 50% score reduction does not apply** since all national election types are covered

## Mixed Systems

For countries with hybrid or semi-presidential systems:

1. **Document both parliamentary and presidential public funding mechanisms**
2. **Calculate separate percentages for each election type**
3. **Explain how the systems interact** and any differences in funding approaches

