MEXICO,S NEW ELECTORAL REGIME PROVING DIFFICULT TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 MEXICO 001683 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/21/2017 TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR MX SUBJECT: MEXICO,S NEW ELECTORAL REGIME PROVING DIFFICULT TO MANAGE Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Charles V. Barclay. Reason: 1.4 (b),(d). ¶1. (SBU) Summary. In the run up to the first national elections since electoral reforms were passed in 2007, it is clear that the electoral regime crafted by ongress is butting up against Mexico,s political reality. Criticism of the law's inconsistencies abound, and the only question is whether and when a groundswell will emerge in favor of revamping it once the dust settles after polling is completed. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) After the hotly contested elections of 2006, one of the first orders of business congress took up was an ambitious state reform effort, largely at the behest of both PRI and PRD leaders. Legislators failed to reach consensus on most of the broad political reform proposals, but found sufficient agreement to launch a reform of Mexico's electoral regime, which many thought had been stressed to its limits by the raucous 2006 presidential campaign and its bitter aftermath. In November 2007, Congress passed constitutional reforms that reorganized the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE),shortened the campaign period considerably, radically changed campaign funding and imposed controversial restrictions on how campaigns could use media to influence voters. At the time, most observers questioned the utility of many of the reforms, which they either characterized as a sop by the PAN to an embittered PRD or as a sinister scheme by PRI leaders to condition future elections to their advantage. Below, we look at the three most significant -- and controversial -- of the measures designed to reform the way campaigns are conducted in Mexico. IFE,s Stewardship of Airtime for Parties/Candidates Poses Challenges ¶3. (U)One of the more controversial and problematic regulation this reform created was to place the IFE in charge of administering time on radio and TV for all parties in federal, state, and local elections. TV and radio stations are required to provide authorities with 48 free minutes of air time a day to run election ads. IFE has divided that time into 2 and 3 minute segments per hour of transmission, which is being distributed among the parties mainly based on their representation in Congress as a result of the last elections. The law expressly prohibits parties and private individuals from buying air time on TV or radio apart from the IFE allocated time. Only authorized parties can run ads &for the purpose of influencing voters and the election,8 and they can only do so during IFE authorized spots. ¶4. (U)Media moguls, commentators and many political figures branded this aspect of the reform as antithetical to free speech. Broadcast giants Televisa and TV Atzeca, concerned by the loss of revenues the restrictions imposed, have carried the fight furthest, and IFE,s response has only muddied the waters. A months long battle emerged between the two companies and the IFE in January and February that erupted when the two deliberately cut into the crucial moments of popular sports events with political ads continues. IFE sanctioned both broadcasters only to postpone the fines, and is now haggling over whether to drastically lower, or forgive the, sending mixed signals to the body politic. ¶5. (C)Parties and candidates are skirting the restrictions on media buys at any rate. Subsequent to the law,s passage, IFE reached an agreement with the Chamber for the Radio and Television Industry to protect journalists, freedom of speech. Since then, journalists and their bosses have been more or less free to engage in the time-honored Mexican electoral tradition of selling favorable print and broadcast coverage to candidates and parties. ¶6. (C)PRI and PAN, with their comparatively large unofficial campaign war chests and stables of friendly reporters and editors, have probably been able to engage more effectively in this practice than have PRD and the smaller parties. One IFE counselor told Poloffs that while hard to substantiate, most of the allegations his institution has received are probably true. Mexico,s National Autonomous University conducted a content analysis of media political coverage and concluded that while the PAN, its candidates and public officials identified with the party received slightly more attention than their PRI counterparts, coverage of PRI and its adherents was more oftentimes cast positively by media. UNAM also found that Media coverage of PRD trailed far behind MEXICO 00001683 002 OF 003 that of the two leading parties. ¶7. (U)Further muddying the waters, parties and broadcast outlets have openly challenged the proscription against &issues-oriented8 spots, outside the allotted 48 minutes, that are designed to appeal to voters, concerns without openly campaigning on behalf of a party or candidate. In one case, the Green Party (PVEM) was fined close to $800,000 USD for buying unauthorized ad time on TV, but successfully argued that the commercials were not propaganda but rather informative. IFE rescinded the fine, essentially leaving open the question of where to draw the line between public service ads and campaign spots. Negative Campaigning Prevails, Despite New Law ¶8. (U)Another controversial change in the legislation prohibited &negative8 campaigning, stating that &political or electoral propaganda that the parties distribute should abstain from expressions that denigrate institutions or parties or that slander people.8 However, while it specifies a range of fines and other penalties for engaging in denigrating or slanderous behavior, it fails to fully define what constitutes such behavior in the first place. ¶9. (U) Not surprisingly, this aspect of the legislation has also been hotly contested. PAN, in particular, has fought a long and expensive battle with IFE over its campaign ads and has been subjected to heavy fines. The Party,s most famous &negative8 ad was a word search puzzle run in magazines and newspapers that asked readers to find &characteristics of the PRI8 and included words like &poverty,8 &complacency8 and &corruption.8 After months of appealing an IFE decision that the ad constituted slander, PAN was forced to pay almost $100,000 USD. ¶10. (SBU) Of course, finger pointing between PAN and PRI over the question of corruption and organized crime continues unabated through a variety of channels, despite the restriction on negative campaigning. Battles rage in many locales over charges and counter charges of official complicity in the narco-trade ) none more bitter than in the state of Chihuahua whose governor stands accused of narco-ties by PAN leaders, and where a former PAN mayor, now candidate for a federal deputyship, was briefly arrested on malfeasance and corruption charges. Many analysts we have spoken with believe that PAN,s use of such tactics successfully chipped away at PRI,s once substantial edge that was demonstrated by early surveys. Incumbent Campaigning Restrictions ¶11. (SBU)The third key aspect of the 2007 reform was the attempt to prevent incumbent officials from political campaigning. The measure was seen as a response to the acrimony engendered during the 2006 presidential campaign, when President Fox unabashedly took to the airwaves to tout his party,s achievements and undermine opposition candidates. The restriction applies to all levels of government in Mexico. ¶12. (SBU)Again, the reform has generated more controversy than clarity. Federal, state and local entities have generally avoided blatant media campaigning on behalf of candidates from their parties, but many a government official has tailored his &official duties8 to maximize opportunities to lend support to favored candidates. In virtually every state in play for governorships, and in numerous localities around the country, charges of vote influencing have been lodged by opposition candidates against sitting governments. Most recently, PRI governors, with help from their PRD colleagues, have attempted to use the National Conference of Governors to denounce what they claim is the widespread use of federal social programs to influence voters, calling PAN &a would-be Santa Clause and giving out things that it is not his to give.8 13.(SBU)The charge that the federal government uses its spending programs to cultivate voters is a long-standing one wielded by opposition politicians. Specific allegations will most likely never be investigated or substantiated. There is little doubt, however, that the PAN-led federal government's command of the law enforcement heights has provided advantage. Numerous broadcast ads highlighting the Calderon administration's commitment to clearing the streets of drug lords and petty traffickers are aired daily. Opposition parties are also charging that the federal government is using the tools at its disposal for political ends. Both PRI and PRD branded late May raids in Michoacan, which netted 28 state and local officials, an attempt by the president to MEXICO 00001683 003 OF 003 influence public opinion in favor of his party. Although a complaint was lodged with IFE, no action has been taken. Federal law enforcement officials deny they have staged such recent aggressive pushes into well known narco hot zones throughout the country to drive a point home to voters, and say that they are long overdue. ¶14. (C)Comments. The fears expressed last year that the electoral reforms would quash freedom of expression during the mid-term season have not been entirely borne out. Many observers believe this current election cycle has been singularly lackluster and ascribe it to the law. However, the kinds of free-wheeling activities the reform was designed to restrain continue. Ambiguities in the law, uneven application of its provisions and aggressive pushback by candidates and media have undercut its impact. IFE personnel feel their institution has been unfairly criticized by the media for its handling of the new legal framework, but admit privately that many of the reforms are unworkable. They expect to see an attempt to overhaul the new electoral regime before the 2012 elections. Whether Mexico,s legislators improve the law, or make a piece of bad legislation worse, remains to be seen. End Comment. Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / BASSETT