URUGUAY: NEW RULES FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE

UNCLAS MONTEVIDEO 000182 SIPDIS STATE FOR WHA/BSC MDASCHBACH E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL ECON SUBJECT: URUGUAY: NEW RULES FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE ¶1. SUMMARY. On the 2nd March, Uruguay's Senate passed draft legislation detailing the rules for financing campaigns during Uruguay's 2009 election cycle. Although, as in past years, the proposal only covers this year's election cycle, if made into law, it would mark the first time in Uruguay's history that donations would be capped and that transparency in fundraising would be mandatory. Uruguay has traditionally maintained a laissez faire approach to campaign financing, but now, among other measures, the new law limits anonymous donations, caps private donations and fines any parties who fail to publically declare their funding sources. Additionally, and also for the first time, funds can be used for the parties' day-to-day operating costs. Implementation of the proposed law may be problematic, however; officials in all parties have expressed concern that Uruguay's Electoral Court lacks the resources to enforce the legislation. END SUMMARY. -------------- Background -------------- ¶2. In Uruguay, state funding pays the majority of costs incurred by political parties and candidates during election campaigns. Recent elections have seen the state pick up around 80% of the bill, with private sources providing the rest. Uruguay was the first country in the world to introduce government funding for electoral campaigns, but Uruguay has no general legislation that regulates campaign financing for political parties. Instead, since 1954, the Uruguayan parliament has voted on how to regulate costs on an election-by-election basis. Until now, however, these regulations only concentrated on detailing the nature of the state's provision and made no mention of private funding. ¶3. Although voting on state funding on an election-by-election system theoretically means that a well-financed party with a strong majority could deny approval for state funding and thereby strengthen its election chances, in practice no such attempts have been made. -------------- State Funding in 2009 -------------- ¶4. Election regulations always calculate the amount of money according to the votes that each party wins. The amount given is expressed in 'indexed units' (financial units indexed to move with inflation). For 2009, the State will remunerate the political parties 87 indexed units (currently worth 166 pesos or USD 12.80) per presidential vote, 10 indexed units (19 pesos or USD 0.80) per runoff vote (if necessary),and 13 indexed units (24.8 pesos or USD 1.00) per vote for internal (primary) and local elections. This marks the first time financial provision has been made for runoff campaigns or primaries, two stages in the electoral cycle that have hitherto placed significant strain on party funds. ¶5. In anticipation of this reimbursement, parties are able to secure an advance on their campaign spending from the state-run Bank of the Republic. These advances are calculated based on the number of the votes won by the party during the previous election. This year's legislation states that parties are required to present a summary of their electoral budget to the electoral court 30 days before the election. This must include projected costs and a record of donations already received. Within 90 days of the election, parties are obliged to submit details of how much money was actually spent and from where it was sourced. Any parties who make it to the second round of the presidential elections (the run-off) must publish their campaign budget on their official party websites. -------------- Private Funding: The Situation Before 2009 -------------- ¶6. Before this year's draft legislation, Uruguay possessed no legal barrier to prevent political parties from accepting donations made by unions or other social organizations; government contractors; anonymous private donors; or even foreign governments and businesses. Neither were there stipulations on the amount that could be received. Regionally, only Paraguay and Guatemala shared such an open approach to funding. Almost all other Latin American countries prohibit donations by foreign governments or businesses, while a large majority oppose donations from government contractors and anonymous sources. In the case of donations from unions or other social organizations however, only Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay have decreed them illegal. ¶7. Since Uruguay's return to democracy in 1985, numerous proposals for permanent regulatory legislation have been floated, but none made it very far. Although some commentators and politicians have long felt that Uruguay's electoral funding process requires firmer regulation and greater transparency, the issue is not particularly contentious and, as yet, has generated little public attention. The ruling Frente Amplio (FA) party, which is responsible for producing this year's financing legislation, has been preparing the content of the draft law since September 2007. As it is the FA's first term in office, and with a majority in congress this is the first time they have had the opportunity to decide how campaign financing should be controlled. -------------- Private Funding in 2009 -------------- ¶8. The draft law places private donations under greater scrutiny. An individual private donation may not exceed 300,000 indexed units (573,384 pesos, or USD 23,891). If, however, the donation is made by a candidate towards his own campaign, then the cap is raised to three times that limit. A donor's name and details must be a matter of public record. Any business in possession of a public service concession is limited to a donation of 10,000 indexed units (19,104 pesos, or USD 796). Anonymous donations are limited to 4000 indexed units(7,632 pesos, or USD 318) and must not exceed 15 percent of the parties' declared income. ¶9. The draft law states that each party must appoint a three-person committee in order to ensure that these regulations are followed. Any party that fails to publish its campaign accounts in time faces a daily fine of 5,000 indexed units (9,552 pesos, or USD 398). If any funds are found to have been gained illicitly, the party must pay double the amount received as a fine. Repeat offenders risk state funding being suspended for up to a year. ¶10. Although full details of the draft law have not yet been published, no reference to foreign or union donations has so far been reported. It should be noted, however, that Uruguay's political culture frowns on foreign donations, and that financial support from unions is traditionally low. The umbrella union PIT/CNT has publically supported the FA, but whether that support has ever been translated into donations is not a matter of public record. -------------- General Party Funding -------------- ¶11. This year's proposed electoral law takes the unprecedented step of earmarking USD 600,000 towards the daily running of the parties. Until now the pre-election legislation has only allocated funds specifically for campaign costs. No public financing has been available for the day-to-day, non-electoral activities of the parties. Campaigns place a large burden on party funds that are frequently already over-stretched. That has led to unusual arrangements, such as within the ruling FA coalition, where senators and deputies pay a significant percentage of their salaries (ranging from 5-50 percent, depending on their particular faction) to the party. In some cases, individuals running for office have mortgaged their homes to finance their campaign. Political parties are, however, exempt from Uruguay's goods tax; car tax; property tax; land tax; and from paying a share of social security for employees. -------------- Pressures on the Electoral Court -------------- ¶11. Whether these measures will survive beyond this year's electoral cycle to become general electoral law is presently unclear. Many ministers from across the political spectrum, as well as officials from the electoral court itself, have stated that the court lacks the resources to be able to investigate party finances with the requisite amount of vigor. ¶12. Additional pressure has been created through the Senate's decision to make the electoral court responsible for placing the electoral lists in the voting booths. Previously, this was the responsibility of the parties themselves, although voters reported cases in which they had entered voting booths only to find that particular lists were missing. The difficulties that the court may face in fulfilling its new obligations are compounded by recent budget cuts. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶13. This year's draft legislation marks a significant improvement in the transparency of Uruguay's election financing. No one, apart from those keeping the books of Uruguay's political parties, can be sure of the extent of foreign or private donor financing in prior campaigns. Although campaigns here have traditionally been relatively low-budget affairs, perceived as generally free from the undue influence often attendant with large contributions, this year's campaign looks to be particularly hard-fought and the new legislation promises some interesting revelations about who is supporting whom. End comment. MATTHEWMAN