Donald Trump announced his 2024 presidential campaign 721 days before Election Day. By the time Americans vote, the major candidates will have spent over a billion dollars each, mostly on television ads. About six in ten eligible voters will actually cast ballots. This is normal here. We barely question it anymore. But when you look at how other democracies run elections, you realize none of this is inevitable. Some countries have figured out entirely different ways to handle campaigns, voting, and money in politics. Not theoretical proposals or wishful thinking; they’re actual laws that have been working for decades. Here are five of them.
1. Corporate Donation Bans
Roughly 40 countries prohibit corporate donations to political parties or candidates, according to International IDEA’s Political Finance Database. This includes major democracies like Canada, France, Japan, and South Korea, as well as developing nations across Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Africa. The breadth of adoption demonstrates that corporate donation bans represent a global democratic norm rather than a regional peculiarity.
The United States prohibits direct corporate donations but allows corporations to establish PACs that collect voluntary contributions from employees and shareholders. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision went further, permitting unlimited corporate spending on independent expenditures.
Brazil’s experience shows the immediate impact. After banning corporate donations in September 2015 following the Petrobras scandal, total campaign donations plummeted from R$6 billion ($1.73 billion) in 2012 to R$3 billion ($868 million) in 2016. Canada maintains even stricter controls. Corporate donations have been banned since 2007, individual contributions are capped at $1,750 CAD annually, and candidates are limited to $5,000 in personal wealth contributions versus unlimited personal spending in the United States.
2. Campaign Duration Limits
Nations worldwide restrict campaign periods through legislation, with durations ranging from 12 days to 90 days. Japan maintains the shortest at 12 days for general elections. South Korea allows 22 days for presidential campaigns. France restricts presidential campaigns to 14 days before the first ballot. The United Kingdom typically runs 5–6 week campaigns. Canada mandates a 36-day minimum. Mexico permits 90 days.
The United States has no legal restrictions on campaign duration. Donald Trump announced his 2024 candidacy 721 days before Election Day, while Kamala Harris had 107 days after becoming the Democratic nominee. When Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called an 11-week campaign in 2015, it became the longest in modern Canadian history and generated significant controversy.
The cost difference is staggering. UK parties spent £30.1 million (Labour) and £23.8 million (Conservatives) during their 5-week 2024 campaign, while American presidential campaigns routinely exceed $1 billion per candidate over 18–24 month periods.
3. Spending Caps
Belgium, Canada, France, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Poland, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom enforce expenditure limits on campaigns. These caps vary significantly but all share the same goal of preventing money from overwhelming democratic choice.
Canada’s formula adjusts for inflation and voter registration. The 2021 federal election limit reached $30,127,504.71 for national parties, calculated as $0.735 per registered voter times a 1.502 inflation adjustment. France’s two-tier system for presidential elections set 2022 caps at €16,851,000 for first-round candidates and €22,509,000 total for those reaching the second round. The UK dramatically increased limits by 80% for the 2024 election after 23 years without adjustment, acknowledging that static limits become meaningless with inflation.
A 2022 study examining French local elections found spending caps combined with public reimbursement reduced incumbent reelection probability by 14.5 percentage points and increased outsider candidate wins by 9.3 percentage points. But in America, the Supreme Court’s Buckley v. Valeo decision declared spending limits unconstitutional as restrictions on political speech.
4. Public Campaign Financing
Most advanced democracies provide substantial public funding for campaigns, though systems range from direct grants to matching funds to reimbursement models. Sweden provides the most comprehensive coverage at 80–90% of major party revenue with SEK 324,704 per parliamentary seat annually plus SEK 5.8 million basic office assistance per party. This support extends beyond campaigns to ongoing operations, recognizing that democratic participation requires continuous institutional capacity.
Germany’s matching system incentivizes grassroots fundraising while providing baseline support. Parties receive €1.00 for their first 4 million votes and €0.83 for additional votes, plus €0.45 in matching funds for each euro raised from individual donations up to €3,300 per donor. No party can receive more state funding than it raises privately, and total state funding cannot exceed €219 million annually.
Research analyzing 99 US state legislatures from 1976–2018 found public financing encouraged approximately 18 extra candidates per legislature. The Supreme Court permits voluntary public financing systems but struck down Arizona’s matching funds provision in 2011.
5. Mandatory Voting
Twenty-seven countries actively enforce mandatory voting, though enforcement varies dramatically. Australia demonstrates the most successful implementation with administrative penalties of $20 federally, $55 in New South Wales, and $99 in Victoria. Turnout has remained above 90% since implementation in 1924, compared to 47–78% before. Belgium theoretically imposes fines from €5 to €150 but hasn’t enforced them since 2003. Luxembourg permits €100-€1,000 fines, though enforcement is extremely rare.
The theoretical case for mandatory voting reducing extremism argues that if preference intensity correlates with extremism while indifference produces moderation, mandatory participation should reduce extremism.
Empirical evidence is mixed. Oprea, Martin, and Brennan’s 2024 study found compulsory voting theoretically reduces political polarization by 22–50% through forcing parties toward median voter preferences. Venezuela provides a natural experiment since turnout dropped from 82% to 61% when compulsory voting ended in 1993.
These five reforms demonstrate how democracies balance participation, representation, and financial influence through structural interventions. The Supreme Court’s campaign finance jurisprudence creates nearly insurmountable barriers to adopting most electoral reforms. Buckley v. Valeo permits contribution limits but prohibits spending caps. Citizens United allows unlimited independent expenditures. Without constitutional change, the United States cannot adopt the comprehensive reforms that function effectively in other democracies. Then again, the current SCOTUS has shown that precedent means nothing to them, so why not follow their lead.
What can you do about this? Start by calling your U.S. House Representative and U.S. Senator, ask “yes or no, do you support impeachment and corruption investigations for SCOTUS members suspected of corruption and/or lying during their confirmation hearing?” If the answer is anything besides an emphatic “yes,” then you start emailing, calling, and sending letters to all their high dollar donors letting them know exactly how that representative feels on the subject of accountability and corruption.
If you found this article worthwhile, check out my book
Conservatism: America’s Personality Disorder
https://a.co/d/dc0MDA5
References
Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011).
Birch, S. (2009). Full participation: A comparative study of compulsory voting. Manchester University Press.
Broberg, N., Pons, V., & Tricaud, C. (2022). The impact of campaign finance rules on candidate selection and electoral outcomes: Evidence from France. NBER Working Paper 29805. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
Commission nationale des comptes de campagne et des financements politiques. (2022). Presidential election 2022: Spending limits. CNCCFP.
Elections Canada. (2015). 42nd general election: Official results. Elections Canada.
Elections Canada. (2024). Political financing limits and thresholds. Government of Canada.
Federal Election Commission. (2024). Contribution limits for 2023–2024. FEC.
International IDEA. (2023). Political finance database. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. 185 (2014).
Miller, P., & Dassonneville, P. (2016). High turnout as a source of unequal participation: Evidence from compulsory voting in Australia and Belgium. Electoral Studies, 44, 492–501.
Oprea, A., Martin, G., & Brennan, G. (2024). Compulsory voting and political polarization: A natural experiment. American Political Science Review, 118(4), 1951–1965.
SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
Stratmann, T., & Aparicio-Castillo, F. J. (2006). Competition policy for elections: Do campaign contribution limits matter? Public Choice, 127(1), 177–206.
UK Electoral Commission. (2024). Spending and donations: UK parliamentary general election 2024. Electoral Commission.
I always learn something new and thought-provoking with you. Keep it coming!!!!
Ranked-choice voting, while a challenging concept to explain, is also an effective control over polarization in campaigns.