ANC seeks to double political funding thresholds

On August 18, 2025, President Cyril Ramaphosa enacted amendments to South Africa’s Political Party Funding Act (PFA) of 2018, doubling key financial thresholds for political donations. The changes, published in the Government Gazette and effective immediately, raise the disclosure threshold for donations from R100,000 to R200,000 and the annual donation cap per donor per party from R15 million to R30 million.

These adjustments, authorised under the president’s discretionary powers as per Section 8 of the PFA, follow a May 20, 2025, National Assembly resolution prompted by the Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs. The stated rationale is to account for inflation since the Act’s inception and to reduce administrative burdens on political parties.

The PFA regulates private funding to political parties, aiming to enhance transparency and limit undue influence from wealthy donors, a response to past scandals like those exposed by the Zondo Commission into state capture. The disclosure threshold mandates that donations above R200,000 be reported to the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) for public scrutiny. The annual cap restricts contributions from a single donor to a single party to R30 million per financial year. The amendments were supported by the African National Congress (ANC) and Democratic Alliance (DA), which argued that inflation (approximately 30% cumulatively since 2018) had eroded the real value of the original thresholds, necessitating an update to sustain party operations. However, the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) had proposed more modest adjustments (R122,000 for disclosure and R21 million for the cap) based on inflation data, deeming the doubling excessive.

The IEC retains oversight, requiring parties to submit annual financial statements, including all donations, regardless of size. Yet, the higher disclosure threshold reduces public visibility of smaller contributions, potentially creating gaps in accountability. The process relied on Ramaphosa’s authority to set thresholds after considering economic factors, though critics argue the decision lacked rigorous justification.Criticisms of the ReformOpposition to the changes, voiced by civil society, smaller parties, and analysts, centres on weakened transparency and heightened risks of undue influence.

My Vote Counts (MVC), a non-profit headed by Minhaj Jeenah of the UK-based Atlantic Institute, argues that the higher disclosure threshold creates a “blind spot” for donations below R200,000, enabling donors to obscure contributions through proxies or split payments. MVC’s Joel Bregman contends that a contribution of R200,000 warrants public scrutiny to safeguard democratic integrity. The organisation has demanded Ramaphosa’s records via a Promotion of Access to Information Act request, due by October 20, 2025, and is considering Constitutional Court action, alleging violations of rights to informed political participation (Section 19) and access to information (Section 32).

Michael Atkins, an elections analyst and contributor to the Institute of Race Relations, criticises the lack of evidence for the doubling, noting that the increases exceed inflation-based adjustments. He questions whether Ramaphosa adequately applied economic and democratic considerations, as required by the PFA, and highlights the president’s unchecked discretion as a legal vulnerability, especially given MVC’s ongoing court challenges. Atkins warns that the reform prioritises party convenience over voter oversight, risking public trust.

Other critics, including the uMkhonto weSizwe Party and Al Jama-ah, argue that the changes favour established parties like the ANC, which rely on large donors, while doing little for smaller parties. North-West University’s André Duvenhage label the hikes “arbitrary,” pointing to South Africa’s high corruption perceptions (Transparency International’s 2024 index: 72/100) as a backdrop for concern.

These critics fear the reform opens loopholes for “secret money” to influence politics, undermining the PFA’s anti-corruption aims.

The PFA itself was enacted in 2018 to address opaque party funding exposed during state capture scandals. It introduced mandatory disclosure and caps, replacing a largely unregulated system where parties like the ANC faced allegations of receiving illicit funds from entities like Bosasa. Initial thresholds (R100,000 for disclosure, R15 million for caps) were set in 2021 after public consultation, marking a shift toward accountability. However, enforcement has been uneven, with delays in reporting and limited IEC capacity noted by analysts like Atkins in prior writings.

The 2025 reform was triggered by the Portfolio Committee’s review, prompted by party complaints about administrative burdens and inflation’s impact on funding. The ANC, facing financial strain post its 2024 election losses (securing only 40% of the vote), likely saw the hikes as a way to ease fundraising constraints within the Government of National Unity framework.

The DA, for its part, faces diminishing returns to campaigning after saturating the minority voter bloc and failing to break through the 4% ceiling of black support. They will need enormous injections of cash to gain escape velocity, if they ever do. But the ANC receives more bang for its buck, and so the funding increases may be a double-edges sword.

Yet the DA now shares mutual interests with the ANC, needing them to remain stable enough that they don’t seek to re-unite with their splinter parties, MK and EFF, if their future is in jeopardy.