Legitimizing Elections Through the Regulation of Campaign Financing: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis and Hope for South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actual or apparent corruption can seriously undermine any democratic system. This Article examines two approaches to tackling this problem in South Africa. The libertarian approach, used in the United States, embodies a strong presumption against regulation of campaign financing on the basis that it is a violation of the constitutional rights to free speech and association. The weak regulations that result from this system do little to stem the influence of a powerful few on the outcomes of national elections. A better approach for South Africa is the egalitarian model, used in both the United Kingdom and Canada. This model focuses on leveling the playing field for participants. Under this model, rights are subject to greater regulation so long as the government can provide sufficient justification. South Africa’s current system, by requiring proportional national funding of political parties, but leaving private financing largely unregulated, has resulted in a virtual one-party state in which private funding dominates. To solve these problems, South Africa should embrace the egalitarian model by implementing spending caps and increasing transparency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".