The Election Commission on August 16 announced the maximum amount of money that could be spent by candidates who contest the September 21 Presidential election for their campaigns, by an extraordinary gazette. 
Accordingly, the Chairman of the Election Commission, R.M.A.L Rathnayake has stated that the maximum amount a presidential candidate can spend per voter is Rs.109, while the total budget of a candidate’s election campaign should not exceed Rs. 1,868,298,586 (around Rs. 1.87 billion) as the number of registered voters is around
17.1 million.  
Sixty percent of this amount or Rs. 1,120,979,151.60 can be incurred by each candidate for propaganda activities. The secretary of the recognised political party or other political party or the elector who nominated the candidate is authorised to incur the other forty percent amounting Rs.747,319,434.40 for propaganda activities of the candidate, the gazette said. 

Expenditure of candidates

During the meeting with the Election Commission on the matter on August 16, the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) stated that they plan to spend Rs 300 per voter, amounting to approximately Rs 5.13 billion. Both the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) and incumbent President Ranil Wickremesinghe indicated they would each spend Rs 250 per voter, leading to an estimated expenditure of Rs 4.275 billion. Meanwhile, the National People’s Power (NPP), led by Anura Kumara Dissanayake announced a campaign budget of Rs 200 per voter, which totals Rs 3.42 billion, according
to sources.
Presidential candidates Janaka Ratnayake and Dr. Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, however, had proposed a spending limit of Rs 20 per voter, resulting in a budget of Rs 342 million.
Despite 38 candidates contesting the Presidential election this time, it would be irrational to conclude that all candidates would spend the amount that has been approved by the EC. Some candidates the motive of whose candidacy is incomprehensible might not spend at all.  However, President Ranil Wickremesinghe, National People’s Power (NPP) leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) leader Sajith Premadasa and Namal Rajapaksa of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) who could be the main contenders would spend the amount approved in full. 
The Former Executive Director of the Campaign for Free and Fair Elections (CaFFE) Rajith Keerthi Tennakoon who is currently the Director General (Community Affairs) in the President’s Office argues that the amount that has been approved by the EC is not sufficient for a party at least to put up posters in the Western Province. In a Facebook post he had suggested that the amount should be at least Rs. 7 billion per candidate.

Exorbitant wastage 

Although one should not rush to reject his argument given his experience in handling elections as a former election monitor, it points to the exorbitant wastage in the election process in Sri Lanka. Only the presumed four main candidates are to spend more than Rs. 7.2 billion, if they do not exceed the approved limits bypassing the law. There are some other candidates who are capable of spending similar amounts or even more. 
“The candidates asked for amounts ranging from 50 Cents to Rs. 1,000 per voter during the meeting they had with us” the polls chief had told media. Had the Commission accepted the Rs.1000 ceiling, the cost of election of at least one candidate would exceed a mindboggling Rs. 17 billion. It must be recalled that the EC could not hold the local government elections last year as President Wickremesinghe as the finance minister did not release Rs. 10 billion that had been allocated by the budget for
that election.

LG elections 

This is the first election being held after the Regulation of Election Expenditure Act was passed in January last year while the local government elections had been announced. The government led by President Wickremesinghe wanted it to be brought in during that election period not due to a genuine desire to control the election expenditure, but to scuttle the LG elections, as it was obvious that the two main ruling parties, SLPP and the UNP would be humiliatingly defeated. 
The shortcomings of the Regulation of Election Expenditure Act would only be realised by the political parties and the EC after this election, as it is in force now for the first time.  Especially, it is not clear how the EC would react in case of a candidate violating the provisions of the Act, despite the Act stating that the candidate “shall be liable to the penalties imposed under such laws in respect of the offence of an
illegal practice.”
Also, “where a candidate incurs expenditure in excess of the authorised amount, such candidate commits an offence of an illegal practice and, shall be liable to the penalties, “unless such candidate proves that such expenditure was incurred without any sanction or connivance of such candidate” according to the Act. This would be a loophole in the law that would justify any exceedance of expenditure that has been approved. It is not clear if the EC has a foolproof mechanism to monitor  election related expenses.

Policies and plans 

Should political parties and candidates spend such a vast amount of money on elections?  If we, from an innocent point of view expect the political parties and the candidates to put forward their policies and plans along with their track record to the people and the people in turn to study those policies and plans before using their franchise, a mere circulation of manifestoes of those parties would suffice to achieve the objective of the election campaign. 
Nevertheless, only a small fraction of the voters are interested in the policies, plans and the track record of political parties or candidates before deciding on whom to vote. The recent unprecedented rise in the popularity of the NPP points to the fact that the economic crisis and the resultant Aragalaya, the popular uprising in 2022 have increased the interest of the people in policies of political parties.
The decision of the others at elections depends on traditional bonds between the voters and political parties, hopes on fulfilling personal needs and particularly on the ‘rella” or the media hype. The current fate of the SLPP is a clear indication of the traditional bonds being shattered by the economic downturn and the ideas cropped up during the Aragalaya. 
Hence, the bulk of the election expenses would be used by political parties to create the “rella” which would include public rallies with huge crowds, high visibility through posters, cutouts, celebrities, paid social media campaigns, paid opinion polls and political somersaults. The success of public rallies of parties except for the NPP, Frontline Socialist Party (FSP) and the like depends on things such as liquor and food distributed among the participants. 

Political literacy 

This massive wastage of money by the political parties could be minimised only through the political literacy among the voters. However, the level of that literacy in Sri Lanka is such that the government, by obtaining loans from the international financial institutions, has been able to create a notion that it salvaged the economy. 
Political parties claim that their funds are built with donations. One can infer who these donors are by social status of the leaders of each party. The support by high profile sponsors to political parties is in most cases not really donations, but investments that earn them direct returns after the election. There have also been investments thus far for the politicians as well, as the returns earned by the donors are presumably shared with the politicians. This is the rationale behind the costliness of elections. This is a cycle of corruption. The irony is that you have to spend similar amounts to defeat the corrupt politicians to break this cycle. 
The election expenditure law provides for the parties to reveal the sources of their funds through the accounts submitted after each election. Yet, even if those accounts are presumed to be authentic, the EC does not have any control over the motive of the donors and the way they fulfil them. 
Besides, the Sri Lankan election law does not prevent an incumbent President to contest a Presidential election while in office. And this, apart from paving the way for one candidate to mobilise the state institutions including the police as he wishes, would enable him and his ministers to use state properties such as vehicles for the election, bypassing the election expenditure law.