Learn more

composite
47
47

Indonesia

In law
65
In practice
47

Indonesia's political finance framework makes public funding available for parties, and is distributed according to how many votes were received during the previous election. In practice, obtaining information on how much funding parties received is nearly impossible, as doing so requires filing information requests with parties themselves. Parties and candidates are also granted free access to public media during campaigns; however, in practice, some parties are granted more coverage than others. Further, non-financial state resources are regularly abused during campaigns. Cash contributions are not regulated and though limits cap the amount an individual can donate to presidential candidates and to parties, contributions to members of parliament are not restricted. Corporate donations are limited, and third party actors are not permitted to make direct contributions to campaigns. Spending during campaigns is not capped. Nevertheless, the MPT evidence indicates that actual spending during the campaign season far outstrips the figures reported by parties. Reporting requirements are not comprehensive, and of the reports that are submitted in practice, most fail to include a complete list of contributors. Detailed information on the financial data of political actors is largely unavailable to the public. Third party actors exert influence during campaigns, but as their independent political activities are not regulated by law, little information on their actions is available. The responsibility for enforcing political finance laws is split between two agencies: KPU and Bawaslu. KPU monitors political finance information, and when necessary, refers cases to Bawaslu for investigation. Only KPU can legally impose sanctions, though its powers are limited. Both agencies are independent, with appointees possessing sufficient merit for their positions, but lack the capacity to completely carry out their functions. In practice, Bawaslu does conduct investigations transparently, and KPU does impose sanctions, but violations continue to occur. The KPU's sanctioning authority is limited to administrative fines, and is too weak to deter repeat violators. The limited authority of the oversight bodies hamstrings their ability to meaningfully enforce many political finance regulations.

  • expand button!

    Direct and Indirect Public Funding

    More about category
    composite
    53
    • expand button!
      Direct Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        1
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, there is direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        In Indonesian law, public funding is only available annually for political parties which hold seats in parliament, and is allocated based on the amount of total votes received in the last election. Political parties receive funds from the government at the national level, the province level and the district/city level. Party headquarters at the national level receive funding from the national budget through the Ministry of Home Affairs. Political party branches at the provincial level receive funding via the provincial budget articulated by the provincial governor. City/district party branches receive funds through the local budget prepared by the mayor or head of district. The provided government subsidy for political parties is IDR 108 (.01 USD) per vote received and at least 60% of the total subsidy received must be allocated for political education activities. No provision bans the use of public funds in electoral campaigns. No funding is available for candidates in presidential, gubernatorial, Senatorial, or mayoral elections.

        Laws No.2/2008 and No.2/2011 (which amends Law 2/2008), in article 34 (3a), stipulate that government aid from the state budget (APBN - national budget/APBD - local budget) must be prioritized to carry out political education for members of political parties and society, although it can be used to finance political parties operational expenses. However, the government regulation, PP 83/2012 on Government Aid to Political Parties, article 9(3) stipulates that at least 60% of government aid should be allocated for political education.

        Law 2/2011, article 34 1. The sources of funding of political parties are a. Membership dues b. Legal donations made according to the law c. Financial aid from national state budget (APBN) and local state budget (APBD). .... 3.a. Financial aid must be prioritised to carry out political education for political party members and society.

        Government regulation (PP) 83/2012, article 9 1) Financial aid for political parties is used to support political education and the operations of political parties 2) The financial aid source is from state national budget (APBN) and state local budget (APBD). 3) At least 60% of financial aid to political parties are used to support political education for political party members and society.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is direct public funding for both political parties and individual candidates to campaign. A 100 also applies where only one of the two actors can be elected and, therefore, only one is entitled to direct public funding.

        A MODERATE score is earned where per law only one of the two actors (either political parties or individual candidates) is allocated direct public funding to campaign, even though both can be elected.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties, article 34 http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

        Government regulation (PP) 83/2012, article 9 https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkq3yf3jpp356ma/PP%2083%20th%202012.pdf?dl=0

      • expand button!
        2
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, there is a transparent and equitable mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        There is no government subsidy exclusively for electoral campaigns, but political parties receive an annual subsidy based on their total votes received in the most recent elections at the national, provincial, and municipal levels. Each level of government allocates a subsidy to parties and their branches based on their representation. The provided government subsidy for political parties is IDR 108 (.01 USD) per vote received and at least 60% of the total subsidy received must be allocated for political education activities. No provision bans the use of public funds in electoral campaigns.

        Law 2/2011 on political parties, article 34, states: ... 3. Financial aid from APBN/APBD is given proportionally to political parties which get seats in national parliament, province parliament and district/city parliament, based on the calculation of number of votes.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) direct public funding for political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where direct public funding for political party and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties, article 34 http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

        Government regulation (PP) 83/2012, article 9 https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkq3yf3jpp356ma/PP%2083%20th%202012.pdf?dl=0

      • expand button!
        3
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent is the mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns transparent, equitable and consistently applied?More about indicator

        At national level, political parties can access government aid; they receive, in practice, IDR 108 for each vote won in the previous election. As previously explained in indicators 1 and 2, no public funding is available for individual or independent candidates.

        In the 2009 election, the Demokrat Party got 21.655.295 votes and from 2010 to 2014, it received a government subsidy of IDR 2.338.771.860 (USD 184,000) annually (Supriyanto&Wulandari,2012:31).

        At the local level, the amount of public funds is distributed by local government (Governor/mayor & local parliament) in their annual budgets, and uses a similar formula based on the amount of votes parties receive. As an example, the City of Yogyakarta allocates IDR 618 (USD .05) per vote to parties’ province branches, and the Demokrat Party branch at Yogyakarta City got IDR 28,19 million (USD 2200) annually (Supriyanto and Wulandari, 2012: 34).

        The process is transparent since the amount of government aid is officially allocated in government budgets by executive and legislative figures, and is calculated based on total votes.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaigns allocations are always defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaign allocations are usually defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are usually applied but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political campaign allocations are rarely or never defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, or 2) the defined eligibility criteria are rarely applied.

        Sources

        Interview with Veri Djunaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem (Perkumpulan untuk Pemilu dan Demokrasi - Association for Election and Democracy), a Jakarta based Indonesian NGO focus on election issues, July 25, 2014.

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014

        Supriyanto, Didik and Lia Wulandari. 2012. Bantuan Keuangan Partai Politik. Metode Penetapan Besaran, Transparansi dan Akuntabilitas Pengelolaan (Financial Aid to Political Party. Calculation method, transparency and management accountability). Jakarta: Perludem & MSI.

      • expand button!
        4
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent does the entity in charge of public funding make disbursement information publicly available?More about indicator

        To obtain information on the public funding distributed to political parties, one must make direct requests to the parties themselves. No regulation mandates that the disbursing authorities publish information on disbursements. Indeed, the only relevant regulation stipulates that parties must submit annual financial reports to the Minster of Home Affairs (for national level party headquarters) and to Governors and Mayors (for party branches at the sub-national level). The Supreme Audit Agency then audits submitted reports.

        Abdullah Dahlan requested the financial reports of nine political parties who won seats in national parliament, but was made to wait a year before his request to access purportedly public information was granted by eight of the nine parties. The Demokrat Party, winner of the 2009 election and led by the sitting President, Susilo Bambang Yudhodyono, was the one exception.

        Transparency International's Indonesia Chapter (TI Indonesia) conducted research on transparency of political finance with respondents of the nine political parties which won seats in national parliament (TI, 2013). However, from nine political parties, only five parties agreed to collaborate in TI research by providing their financial reports while four other parties did not give any report.

        A local NGO in the West Nusa Tenggara Province, Fitra NTB, was sued by the local Golkar Party branch after requesting the party's financial report. Previously Golkar Party refused to disclose its financial reports, but Fitra NTB went to the local Information Commission and demanded adjudication. As a result, the Information Commission ordered the Golkar Party to publicly issue its financial information, as this should be accessible to the pubilc. However instead of providing the financial report, the Golkar Party sued both the Information Commission and Fitra NTB in civil court (Lomboknews.com, 2014).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. According to article 13 of Law No.2/2011 on Political Parties, parties must keep records of all the funds they receive and disclose it to the government. Specifically for public funding, parties must submit a yearly financial report to the Supreme Audit Agency. The Law however did not say that the report must be opened to public.

        Article 26 of the Home Affairs Ministry Regulation Number 26/2013 on the Guidelines on Calculating, Budgeting, Proposing, Disbursing and Reporting on the Financial Assistance for Political Party, defines the report as:

        a. recap of the receiving and expenditure of financial aid and details of how it was spent per activity b. inventory report on supply and equipment as well as use of services

        The ministerial regulation also defines a fixed report format: which however only covers the general explaination on the amount allocated and the amount spent per activity: such as how much is spent on utility, phone, correspondence, travel, maintenance etc.

        According to a Perludem study released in September 2012 titled "Political Party Financial Assistance: Calculation Methods, Transparency and Accountability" (Didik Supriyanto & Lia Wulandari, "political parties almost never produce an annual financial report. Even if some parties do produce [financial] report it doesn't mean that [the report] can be accessed to public. And then even if the public can access [the report] there is no way of knowing how accurate [the report] is."

        Perludem study, "Political Party Financial Assistance: Calculation Methods, Transparency and Accountability," 2012. http://www.rumahpemilu.com/public/doc/20121119021740Sumbangan%20Partai%20-%20rev.pdf

        Law No.2/2011 on Political Parties http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

        Home Affairs Ministry Regulation Number 26/2013 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.setdaprovkaltim.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F09%2Fpermenno.26th2013.doc&ei=85RVIizC4XwmAXzqIKQAQ&usg=AFQjCNGgpqePvlucBJ5eviPhGUPmVvv75w&sig2=sH4A1rXWaKXMVynaiikf-A&bvm=bv.78597519,d.dGY

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) complete information on the disbursements is published less than a month after disbursement, and 2) the information is available on the Internet for free or in hard copy at photocopying cost.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the information published is incomplete or published more than two months after disbursement, or 2) obtaining the information costs more than photocopying.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) disbursement information is published more than four months after disbursement, or 2) no disbursement information is published or released upon request.

        Sources

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014

        Transparency InternationaI Indonesia. 2013. Laporan Pengukuran Tingkat Transparansi Pendanaan Partai Politik di Tingkat Dewan Pimpinan Pusat (Measurement report of Political Financing Transparency in Parties National Headquarter). Transparency International Indonesia Chapter Report. Downloaded from http://ti.or.id/media/documents/2013/04/16/f/u/full_report.pdf at August 28, 2014.

        Lomboknews.com. 2014. Golkar NTB Menggugat Komisi Informasi Provinsi Sejumlah Rp. 1.053 miliar (West Nusa Tenggara Golkar Party Branch sue Information Commission IDR 1.053 billion). January 31, 2014. http://lomboknews.com/2014/01/31/golkar-ntb-menggugat-komisi-informasi-provinsi-sejumlah-rp-1053-miliar/ on August 28, 2014.

    • expand button!
      Indirect Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        5
        Score
        YES
        In law, use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates is prohibited.More about indicator

        It is prohibited to use state resources in favour of or against particular political parties or candidates. The regulation is very clear, and mentions several strategic positions that must request temporary unpaid leave should they want to participate in campaigns. Presidents, Governors, and Mayors/heads of district are among these positions. Further, even when upon leave, such figures are prohibited from using government facilities or resources in their campaigns.

        Law No 42/2008 on Presidential and Vice Presidential Election also bars the use of state facilities in campaigns. Article 42 of the Law says that incumbent president and vice president are barred from involving civil servants for their campaign activities as well as using all state facilities with the exception of their personal security details. The incumbents are also barred, according to Article 43 and 44 from creating decisions, actions, instructions, promises or threats which benefit anyone’s campaign.

        Law number 8/2012 on The Legislative Elections (National Parliament - DPR, Province and District/City Parliament - DPRD and Senate - DPD), article 86

        1. Implementers, participants and officials of election campaigns are prohibited from: ... h. using government facilities, religious places and education facilities

        2. Campaign officials are prohibited to include a. Chief, Deputy and justice of Supreme Court and all of judges in the court under Supreme Court and Constitutional Judges under Constitutional Court. b. Chief, Deputy and member of Supreme Audit Institution. c. Governor, Deputy Senior and Deputy of Central Bank. d. Directors, Commissioners, Oversight Committee and star of state owned enterprises (national government and local government). e. Public servants. f. Military g. Head of Village h. Village government officials

        Article 87 1. Electoral campaigns that include President, Vice President, Ministers, Governors, Deputy Governors, Head of Districts and Deputy of Head of Districts, Mayor and Deputy of Mayor have to fulfil the regulation: a. cannot use any embedded government facilities except security services. b. must be on unpaid leave

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is an explicit ban on the use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A YES is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions, which are accessible to all actors equally.

        A MODERATE score is earned where an explicit ban exists but it only applies to one of the two actors, even though both can be elected. A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        A NO score is also earned where the law exists, but allows discretionary exceptions.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 86 and 87. www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, articles 42-44. http://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

      • expand button!
        6
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent are no state resources used in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        Bawaslu, the authority that oversees elections in Indonesia, found a number of instances in which state resources were used by governing officials in contravention of the law durin gthe most recent elections. Of particular note was the use of government housing, vehicles, and staff to support certain political parties and canididates. Such violations occurred in all types of elections, including presidential and Legislative Electionss.

        For example, the Central Java Province chapter of Bawaslu reported that the Mayor of Salatiga and Head of District of Banjarnegara (Parwito, 2014) both participated in the presidential campaign without taking official leave, as required by law. Mayor of Salatiga Yuliyanto was participating in campaign to support President candidate without taking temporary leave from office. The Head of Banjarnegara District, Tejo Utomo, mobilized public servants and heads of villages to support the governing party's presidential candidate.

        Another example can be found in the Southeast Sulawesi Province, where Police named the Head of District of Konawe Utara, Aswad Sulaiman, as a suspect in criminal act in the election (Pati, 2014). Aswad was investigated after he mobilized public servants to support certain candidates from the Demokrat Party. He also used his office to campaign for the Demokrat Party. Aswad is also the head of the Demokrat Party’s branch in Konawe Utara District.

        Bawaslu also reported that Jokowi, the current president elect, used government facilities in his campaign.

        These cases clearly show that state resources were regularly used in favor of the Demokrat Party during the most recent campaign.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. In March 2014, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who is also the chairman of the Democratic Party came under heavy criticisms for travelling to Lampung province in Sumatra to attend a Democratic Party campaign using the presidential plane (Waskita, 2014).

        That same month, the East Java chapter of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) was reported by the local Elections Supervisory Committee (Panwaslu) for using vehicles and mobile lavatory units belonging to the city government of Surabaya for a campaign rally for the legislative election (Jaring News, 2014). The rally was attended by city council members from PDI-P and deputy mayor of Surabaya Whisnu Sakti Buana who was also a PDI-P politician, all arriving to the rally using their official cars.

        The Indonesia Corruption Watch recorded 135 cases of abuse of state resources throughout the legislative election.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there is no evidence of authorities using state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A 100 is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions and are equally accessible to all actors.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) documented evidence indicates occasional use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates, or 2) clearly defined exceptions are not equally accessible to all actors.

        A 0 score is earned where documented evidence indicates regular use of state resources in favor of or against certain political parties and individual candidates.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, Member of Bawaslu (Election Oversight Body, July 26, 2014)

        Rosyid, Imam. 2014. Panwaslu Solo: Caleg PDIP Gunakan Fasilitas Pemerintah (PDIP Candidates Use Government Facilities). http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2004/03/14/05840643/Panwaslu-Solo-Caleg-PDIP-Gunakan-Fasilitas-Pemerintah

        Rakhmatulloh. 2014. Bawaslu Putuskan Kampanye Jokowi di Monas Pelanggaran Pemilu (Bawaslu Decides on Massive Jokowi Campaign Election Violations). Pemilu. http://pemilu.sindonews.com/read/878434/113/bawaslu-putuskan-kampanye-jokowi-di-monas-pelanggaran-pemilu

        Parwito. 2014. Central Java Bawaslu investigates Salatiga City Mayor and Banjarnegara Head of District. Merdeka.com, June 27, 2014. http://www.merdeka.com/peristiwa/bawaslu-jateng-periksa-wali-kota-salatiga-bupati-banjarnegara.html, accessed September 2014.

        Pati, Kiki Andi. 2014. Using State Facilities for Demokrat Party, Head of District named as a suspect. Kompas.com, April 3, 2014. http://regional.kompas.com/read/2014/04/03/1614025/Diduga.Pakai.Fasilitas.Negara.untuk.Demokrat.Bupati.Jadi.Tersangka, accessed September 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Waskita, Ferdinand. 2014: "Pakai Fasilitas Negara untuk Kampanye Demokrat, SBY Tidak Beretika" (Using State Facility for Democrats' Campaign, SBY Unethical) http://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2014/03/27/pakai-fasilitas-negara-untuk-kampanye-demokrat-sby-tidak-beretika

        Suprayitno, Adi. 2014: Panwaslu Surabaya: PDIP Lakukan Banyak Pelanggaran (PDI-P Conducted a lot of Violation, Committee Says) http://jaringnews.com/politik-peristiwa/umum/58553/panwaslu-surabaya-pdip-lakukan-banyak-pelanggaran

      • expand button!
        7
        Score
        YES
        In law, political parties and individual candidates have free or subsidized access to equitable air time for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        There is no free access to private media, but political parties contesting elections are granted, in law, equal access to public television (TVRI) and public radio (RRI) as stipulated by Law number 8/2012 on Legislative Electionss in articles 91 - 99. All candidates participating in elections have the same access to advertise in private media (TV, print media, online, radio, etc), with the price set below the commercial rate.

        Law number 8/ 2012 on Legislative Electionss, article 92: 1. Public Broadcasting institution Televisi Republik Indonesia (TVRI), public radio institution (RRI), local broadcasting institution and private broadcasting institution must provide equal time and treatment to general election participants to deliver campaign materials.

        Article 98: ... 2. Printing and broadcasting media must give a similar advertisement rate to all of electoral campaign participants. 3. The advertisement rate for electoral campaign for society must be lower than commercial rate.

        The responsibility to ensure equitable advertisement air time for television falls in the hands of the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission; and for print it falls in the hands of the Indonesin Press Council.

        According to the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission’s decree 45/2014 on The Protection of Public Interest, Journalistic Broadcast, Advertisement and General Election,

        Article 5:

        1. All broadcast programs must not be utilized for the interests of media owners or associated groups.
        2. All journalistic programs which involve the media owners and their associated groups must be fair, balanced and unbiased according to journalism code of ethics.
        3. Advertisements which involve the media owners and their associated groups can only be broadcasted according to campaign schedules based on existing laws and regulations.
        4. Advertisements which involve the media owners and their associated groups must pay according to the applied rate and treated the same way as any other advertisers.

        Moreover, according to the General Elections Commission Regulation 15/2013 on Legislative Election Campaign Guidelines:

        Article 41 bars print and broadcast media from dedicating news segment for campaign purposes including sponsored programs. The same article also prohibits media from selling advertisement space and spots allocated for but unused by one party or candidate to another party or candidate.

        Article 42 limits the number of advertising spots for television and radio to ten per day each with a maximum time of 30 second.

        Article 43 mandates media to apply the same advertisement rate to all election participants which is lower than standard commercial rate but didn’t specify by how much.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, article 92 and 98. www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        The Indonesian Broadcasting Commission’s decree 45/2014 on The Protection of Public Interest, Journalistic Broadcast, Advertisement and General Election http://www.kpi.go.id/download/KeputusanKPI/201445KKPIPetunjukPelaksanaanPemilu.pdf

        The General Elections Commission Regulation 15/2013 on Legislative Election Campaign Guidelines http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/pkpu152013_kampanye.pdf

      • expand button!
        8
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent is free or subsidized access to air time provided in a transparent, equitable way to political parties and individual candidates for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        According to Daniel Zuchron, member of Bawaslu, and Ansylema from TVRI, there is no problem with access to media advertising on public television (TVRI) and public radio (RRI). All of parties and president candidates got the equal allocation for advertisement in TVRI and RRI. The case for equitable access to private media, however, is less clear.

        Indeed, on March 18, 2014, the very first day of the campaign period for the legislative election the Indonesian Broadcast Commission (KPI) gave formal citations to four political parties, three of which have television stations owned by party members and leaders, for exceeding the maximum daily advertisement quota (Prasetya, 2014).

        The four are:

        1. The National Democratic Party (Nasdem), whose chairman Surya Paloh owns Metro TV and Media Indonesia newspaper. That day the commission noted that National Democratic Party commercial appeared 12 times on Metro TV.
        2. The People’s Conscience Party (Hanura). Hanura’s advertisement appeared 13 times in RCTI and MNCTV and 15 times in Global TV. All three stations are part of MNC Group, owned by media mogul Hari Tanoesoedibjo who at the time served as the party’s advisory board chairman
        3. Golkar Party, whose chairman Aburizal Bakrie owns TVOne and ANTV. That day, Golkar’s advertisement was aired 14 times on TVOne, 15 times on ANTV and 16 times on Indosiar.
        4. The Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra). Its commercial appeared 14 times on TransTV.

        Since then the KPI found the same daily quota violations throughout the month of March, 2013 with one, Golkar Party going more than twice the allowed advertising time on TVOne on March 23 and on ANTV on March 22 (Suara Pembaruan, 2014)

        The KPI also issued a formal citation in December 2013, to six television stations for airing “disproportionate news programs and advertisements which carry campaign messages.” (Gustaman, 2014). The six were RCTI, MNC TV, Global TV, ANTV, TVOne and Metro TV, all of which are linked to senior politicians.

        Media ownership in Indonesia is highly centralized, and most outlets are controlled by a few businessmen. The owners of mass media enter politics and use their outlets to campaign. In the recent 2014 elections, Aburizal Bakrie, Chief of Golkar Party, Indonesian tycoon and the owner of media group, used TV One and AN TV, his two television channels, to promote his party and presidential candidate. The MNC Group, which controls the popular TV stations RCTI, MNC, and Global TV, in addition to newspapers and online portals, are owned by and supported Hary Tanoesoedibyo, Vice President candidate of Hanura Party. After his party could not get enough seats to support his candidacy, he supported Prabowo, another Presidential candidate, and used using his TV and all of his media to support Prabowo.

        Another tycoon, Surya Paloh, the owner of Media Group which controls Metro TV, news TV stations and the newspaper Media Indonesia, established his own party, Nasdem and used his TV to support his candidacy. After Paloh failed to gain popular support, he shifted his media resources to the support of Jokowi, the eventual winner of the 2014 presidential election. The oligarch of Indonesian print media and local TVs is Dahlan Iskan, who owns Jawa Pos Group and is also the Minister of State Owned Enterprises. He controls tens of local newspaper and local TV stations. In the recent election, Dahlan Iskan was running as a presidential candidate in Democrat Party convention, but failed to attract substantial support. He then threw his lot behind Jokowi.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is always provided in a transparent and equitable way, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is usually provided in a transparent and equitable way, but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are not always applied.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) there's rarely free or subsidized access to air time for political campaign, and 2) access exists but is not provided in a transparent, equitable way.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, Member of Bawaslu (Election Oversight Body) July 26, 2014.

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014.

        Interview with Ansylema, editor, news presenter and talkshow host at TVRI, September 14, 2014

        BBC Indonesia. 2014. KPI soroti pemihakan televisi dalam pilpres (KPI (Indonesia Broadcasting Authority) Concerns on Media Independence in Presidential Elections). May 27, 2014. http://www.bbc.co.uk/indonesia/beritaindonesia/2014/05/140527kpiindependensimediatv_pilpres.shtml, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Kompas. 2014. Lima Media Televisi Dinilai Tidak Netral (5 TV stations are not neutral). Kompas.com, June 3, 2014. http://indonesiasatu.kompas.com/read/2014/06/03/1931407/Lima.Media.Televisi.Dinilai.Tidak.Netral, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Prasetya, Eko. 2014. KPI: Empat parpol langgar jumlah spot iklan kampanye (Four Parties Violates Advertising Quota). Merdeka, 2014. (http://www.merdeka.com/politik/kpi-empat-parpol-langgar-jumlah-spot-iklan-kampanye.html, accessed October 2014.

        Gustaman. 2014. Siaran Mengandung Unsur Kampanye, KPI Tegur Enam Stasiun TV (KPI Cites 6 TV Stations), Tribune News, May 12, 2014. (http://www.tribunnews.com/pemilu-2014/2013/12/05/siaran-mengandung-unsur-kampanye-kpi-tegur-enam-stasiun-tv, accessed October 2014)

        SP. 2014 8 Stasiun TV Langgar Aturan Iklan Kampanye (8 TV Stations Violate Campaign Advertisement Regulation), March 31, 2014. (http://sp.beritasatu.com/home/8-stasiun-tv-langgar-aturan-iklan-kampanye/52167, accessed October 2014)

  • expand button!

    Contribution and Expenditure Restrictions

    More about category
    composite
    60
    • expand button!
      General Rules on Electoral Campaign Contributions
      More about category
      • expand button!
        9
        Score
        NO
        In law, cash contributions are banned.More about indicator

        There is no prohibition on receiving cash donations although the law number 8/ 2012 on Legislative Elections, in article 129, stipulates that political parties have to begin a special bank account for electoral campaigns that must be separated from their regular account. For Presidential candidates (Law 42/2008, Article 98) and Senator candidates, they must also setup campaign accounts which are separate from their personal account.

        There is no further regulation on money, whether it is a cash contribution or transfer via bank.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where cash contributions are banned and all financial contributions must be made via the banking system.

        A MODERATE score is earned where cash contributions are allowed up to a maximum limit, regardless of the limit.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        There is no such regulation in Indonesia.

      • expand button!
        10
        Score
        YES
        In law, there is a ban on anonymous contributions.More about indicator

        According to Indonesian regulation, anonymous contributors in legislative as well as Presidential Elections are banned. Every single contribution to political parties, senatorial candidates and presidential candidates should be recorded, and must disclose the identiy of the donor.

        Law number 8/2012 on Legislative Electionss, article 131 (3), stipulates that campaign donors, both individuals and corporations, must include their clear identity. Article 139 bars parties and candidates from accepting donations from anonymous sources.

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 103 (1b) determines that President candidates are not allowed to receive contribution from other parties without clear identity. According to article 222, if presidential candidate does receive an anonymous donation, he must report it immediately to the General Elections Commission and submit the sum received to the state.

        The Election Commission regulation (PKPU) number 17/ 2013 regulates more details on the information of contributors. Article 19 (2) stipulates the information that should be provided from personal donations, and also group donations (3) and corporate donations (4), are not only names but also addresses (both home and office), the source of money, and tax ID numbers.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where the law stipulates that anonymous contributions are banned.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the ban exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where small anonymous donations are allowed up to a maximum threshold equal to or less than the equivalent to US$300.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 131, 139 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 103, 222 http://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        PKPU Regulation 17/2013 on Guidance on Campaign Finance reporting of election participants for local parliaments (DPRD), Senateor (DPD) and national parliament (DPR). http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/PKPU%20No.%2017%20Th%202013.pdf

      • expand button!
        11
        Score
        YES
        In law, in-kind donations to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        Any contribution, including in-kind contributions, must be reported to the election commission.

        Law number 8/ 2012 on Legislative Elections article 129 (5) stipulates that in kind donations in forms of goods and services should be recorded according to their fair market price. The records of donation is an integral part of campaign finance that will be reported to election commission after the election. This regulation applies to all types of elections, as determined by Law 42/2008, Article 97(2).

        Law number 8/ 2012 on Legislative Elections article 129 (5) Election campaign fund contributions in the form of goods and/or services are recorded based on the fair market price at the time the contributions are received

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, article 97 (2) Election campaign funds in the form of goods and services are recorded based on the fair market price at the time the contributions are received.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all in-kind donations must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is also earned if the requirement to report such information exists, but applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 129 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 97 http://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

      • expand button!
        12
        Score
        NO
        In law, loans to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        There is no specific article that regulates loan contributions. According to the existing regulation, Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 129 (3) and Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, article 94(3), contributions are defined solely as money, goods and/or services.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all loans must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is earned where loans must be reported, but the requirement applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        No such law exists.

    • expand button!
      Limits on Contributions and Expenditures during Electoral Campaign Periods
      More about category
      • expand button!
        13
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, contributions from individuals are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        There is a limit for campaign donations to political parties and Presidential candidates as well as Senatorial candidates during the campaign season. There is also a limit on donations to political parties in a fiscal year outside the campaign season.

        The maximum individual contribution to political parties and Presidential candidate during the electoral season is IDR 1 billion (USD 91,000), as stipulated by Law 8/2012, Article 131.

        A similar limit is also applicable in regards to annual donations to political parties, as stipulated by Law 2/2011 on Political Parties article 35. An individual is allowed to contribute a maximum of IDR 1 billion in a budget year. For Senatorial candidates, the maximum contribution is IDR 250 million (USD 22.000). However, members of parties can contribute an unlimited amount to their parties, meaning that, in law, party members are not subject to contribution limits.

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, article 131: (1) Election campaign funds which are contributed by other parties should not exceed IDR 1 billion.

        Article 133 (1) Election campaign fund of DPD's candidate (Senator) from individual contribution should not exceed IDR 250 million.

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, article 96: (1) Campaign fund from individual donation should not exceed IDR 1 billion.

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties, article 35: (1) Donations received by political parties are from: a. individual, members of political parties in which the implementation is regulated by political parties by law. b. individual, non member of political parties, maximum IDR 1 billion per person per one fiscal year.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. According to the Law 2/2011 on Political Parties a political party must have an bank account used for its operational expenses but the law does not bar a political party from having multiple bank accounts.

        The same law also allows for a political party to form provincial, district and city level chapters and organizational arms such as youth wings, women’s arms etc. The chapters and wings are not barred from creating their own separate bank accounts as is the case with individual candidates and their respective campaign teams.

        In his 2013 paper “Transparency and Accountability of Campaign Funds” Refki Saputra, a researcher from the Indonesian Legal Roundtable writes “the law does not firmly stipulate that all donations must be channeled to [a party’s] campaign account. Therefore donors could easily donate their money [to other accounts] which would remain unrecorded in the campaign’s financial report.”

        Saputra highlights that existing laws and regulations have not addressed this issue.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) individuals may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where individuals are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 131 and 133 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 96 http://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties, Article 35 http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

        Reviewer's sources: Saputra, Refki. 2013. "Mendorong Transparansi dan Akuntabilitas Dana Kampanye Melalui Pembatasan Transaksi Keuangan Tunai (Transparency and Accountability of Campaign Funds) http://balaibaca.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/mendorong-trans-dan-akun-pendanaan-kampanye.pdf

      • expand button!
        14
        Score
        YES
        In law, contributions from corporations are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        There is a limit on corporate donations. For political parties (both during and outside campaigns), corporate donations may be no more than IDR 7.5 billion (USD 682.000) while for Senatorial candidates, the limit is IDR 500 million (USD 45.000). Those limits are stipulated by Law 8/2012, Articles 131 and 133. However, for Presidential Elections, the maximum corporate contribution is IDR 5 billion (USD 455.000) as regulated by Law 42/2008, Article 96.

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 96 (2) Campaign funds from groups, companies or non-state enterprises should not exceed than IDR 5 billion.

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 131 (2) Election campaign funds which are from groups, companies and/or non-state business unit should not exceed IDR 7.5 billion.

        Article 133 (2) DPD's candidate (Senateor) campaign funds from groups, companies and/or non-state business unit should not exceed IDR 500 million.

        Law number 2 year 2011 on Political Parties, article 35 (1) Donation received by political parties are from c. Companies and/or business unit, maximum IDR 7.5 billion per company per one fiscal year.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - In his 2013 paper “Transparency and Accountability of Campaign Funds” Refki Saputra, a researcher from the Indonesian Legal Roundtable writes “the law does not firmly stipulate that all donations must be channeled to [a party’s] campaign account. Therefore donors could easily donate their money [to other accounts] which would remain unrecorded in the campaign’s financial report.”

        Saputra, Refki. 2013. "Mendorong Transparansi dan Akuntabilitas Dana Kampanye Melalui Pembatasan Transaksi Keuangan Tunai (Transparency and Accountability of Campaign Funds) http://balaibaca.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/mendorong-trans-dan-akun-pendanaan-kampanye.pdf

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) corporations may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount or ban exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where corporations are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 96 http://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 131 and 133. www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties, Article 35 http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

      • expand button!
        15
        Score
        YES
        In law, contributions from foreign sources are banned.More about indicator

        Presidential candidates and political parties are not allowed to receive donations from foreign sources. Other prohibitions exist in regards to donations with unclear provenance, state owned enterprises, and the government budget (national, local and village level) outside of prescribed public funding.

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections article 139 Election participants are prohibited to receive donations from a. Foreign sources. b. Donors without clear identity. c. Government budget (national budget and local budget). d. State owned enterprises, owned by national government, local government and village government.

        This regulation is also applicable in Presidential elections which is stipulated by Law 42/2008, Article 103.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to receive contributions (financial or in-kind) from foreign sources.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the ban exists but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates), or 2) contributions from foreign sources are allowed to a maximum amount.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections article 139 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 42/2008, Article 103. http://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

      • expand button!
        16
        Score
        YES
        In law, contributions from third-party actors (unions, foundations, think tanks, political action committees, etc.) are limited to a maximum amount or banned.More about indicator

        Donations from third parties are limited, as set forth in the laws cited below.

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 96 (2) Campaign funds from groups, companies or non-state enterprises should not exceed IDR 5 billion.

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 131 (2) Election campaign funds which are from groups, companies and/or non-state business unit should not exceed IDR 7.5 billion.

        Article 133 (2) DPD's candidate (Senator) campaign funds from groups, companies and/or non-state business unit should not exceed IDR 500 million.

        Law number 2 year 2011 on Political Parties, article 35 (1) Donations received by political parties are from c. Companies and/or businesses, maximum IDR 7.5 billion per company per one fiscal year.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law, or 2) are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the maximum amount or ban exists only for the majority of third-party actors, but not all, or 2) the maximum amount or ban exists, but applies only to contributions for either political parties or individual candidates.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 96 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 131 and 133 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties, article 35 http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/UU%2002%20Tahun%202011.pdf

      • expand button!
        17
        Score
        NO
        In law, election campaign spending by political parties and individual candidates is limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        There is no limit on campaign spending.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to spend more than a certain amount in a political campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the maximum amount exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, Article 131 and 133 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 96 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

      • expand button!
        18
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Do the national laws regulating political finance also apply to sub-national units? If not, to what extent do sub-national units have laws regulating political finance?More about indicator

        There are also regulations on campaign financing for the elections of governors and mayors/heads of district. Every candidate must set up a special campaign account separate from their personal account. Candidates are not allowed to receive contributions from state owned enterprises, foreign sources, and may not take advantage of government facilities. Moreover, they have to submit their campaign finance reports to the local election commission. There is also a contribution limit for candidates in local elections. The limit for personal donations is IDR 50 million (USD 4249) and for corporation is IDR 350 million (USD 29746).

        Regulations on local elections are set forth in Law 32/2004 on regional government and currently government and national parliament are in the deliberation process for special laws on local election.

        Law 32/2004 on Regional Government: (3) Campaign finance donation from individual donor should be no more than IDR 50 million and IDR 350 million from enterprises. .... (5) Donation to candidates more than IDR 2.5 million in form of money or in kind shall be reported the amount and the identity of donor to election commission.

        According to interview sources, because the regulations governing different types of elections at both national and subnational levels are very similar, no gaps in the regulatory framework exist.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the applicability of national political finance regulations at the sub-national level, being sure to answer: 1) whether national laws are applicable to sub-national campaigns; 2) if not, to what extent do sub-national units have similar laws regulating political finance; and 3) whether there are any reports of problems arising from gaps in this framework.

        Sources

        Interview with Veri Djunaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem, July 25, 2014 Interview with Eka Satya Laksamana, member of Election Oversight (Bawaslu Banten), August 4, 2014

        Law 32/2004 on Regional Government http://pgsp-agi.org/en/downloads/viewcategory/27

      • expand button!
        19
        Score
        --
        Open Question: What are the predominant sources of funding for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        For campaign finance, Presidential candidates and political parties collect donations from political party members, individual donors and corporations. However, the financial reports submitted to the election commission by political parties and candidates do not reflect their real spending, and it is widely believed that campaign spending is much more than official reports indicate. It is also widely believed that the biggest contributors for campaign finance are Indonesian rich people and big corporations. Nevertheless, according to interview sources, to avoid campaign donation limits and any disclosure requirements, such as tax numbers, the contributors tend to hide their real contributions.

        According to Eka Laksamana, member of Bawaslu Baten, legislative candidates mostly use their own personal money during campaigns. However, candidates tend to hide their real campaign spending and the Election Oversight authority does not have enough resources to perform investigative audits to check the candidates' financial reports. The main sources of campaign funds are individual donations, political party support, and corporate donations. There is a campaign donation limit to President candidates but this limit is not applicable for donations from political parties. This is the loophole in the campaign finance regulation. If anyone or any corporation wants to contribute higher than limit and does not want to show its identity and tax number, it can simply donate the money or give service through political parties. In the campaign finance report, it will be recorded as the contribution from political parties. In the recent 2014 election, both presidential candidates received their largest contributions from political parties. Prabowo Subianto received total contribution IDR 118.02 billion and 45.13% from political parties, while his opponent Jokowi received total contribution IDR 295.04 billion and 63% from parties.

        Both candidates spent almost all of their contributions received: Jokowi spent IDR 294.57bilion (USD 24,535,232) and Prabowo spent IDR 118.02 billion (USD 9,830,000). Actually it is not clear where the money contributed by political parties come from because contributions for President candidate is come from his/her own money, from individual donor and corporations and political parties. This is a loophole in the Indonesian campaign finance regulation in Presidential Elections because the biggest amount of contribution is only recorded as party’s donation.

        In Indonesia, political parties are not allowed to set up their own businesses. According to political party law (Law number 2 year 2011) the source of income of political parties are from member contribution, external contribution both from individual and corporations and government subsidy. Parties are not allowed to establish their own business unit or having shares of companies (Law 2/2008 on Political Parties, article 40(4)).

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the important sources of funding for electoral campaigns, being sure to answer: 1) where does the preponderance of funding come from - public, individual, corporate, or other; 2) to what extent do individual candidates self-finance; and 3) do political parties have other methods of generating campaign funds, such as owning their own businesses or trusts.

        Sources

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014. Interview with Eka Satya Laksamana, member of Bawaslu Banten, August 4, 2014.

        Recent campaign finance reports from the 2014 election (summary version) can be downloaded at this link http://www.kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/DKPPIIPrabowo-Hatta672014.pdf http://www.kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/DKPPIIJKW-JK672014.pdf

      • expand button!
        20
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been documented instances of violations of contribution or expenditure limits or any of the laws mentioned above (Section 2)?More about indicator

        To avoid sanction, political parties and candidates provide the financial reports required by the election commission. They arrange all contributions so as to not violate the contribution limit and they do not include banned sources in their reports. In recent financial report of parties and candidates, there was not even a single violation of contribution limits or receiving donation from banned sources. Once parties or candidates violate this regulation, it will be investigated by Bawaslu and law enforcement agencies or attacked by other candidates/parties. Therefore, in their financial report, they will be careful not to include contribution above the limit or to list receiving donations from banned sources. The most violation are incomplete information of donors which can be categorised as an administrative violation, not criminal.

        To check the accuracy of reports, it should be the job of auditor, but according the previous experience, auditors will only check the procedures of reporting and based on submitted report only, not carry out investigative audits to find out any violation and the real source of contribution. Specific examples of violations from the 2014 elections are difficult to ascertain. Interviewees report that Jokowi received a number of donations from grassroots sources without providing the requisite names and id numbers of donors. Indeed, in Indonesia, it is a common secret that candidates spend more than they officially report, and that donation limits are regularly exceeded via use of loopholes in the law. As long as official finance reports do not include illegal donations, audits will not capture such donations.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - Documented instances of campaign contribution violation have thus far been on the issue of anonymous contribution and other technical violation. According to the Indonesia Corruption Watch political parties and individual candidates have not been transparent in disclosing where their campaign finance originates (Politik Uang, 2014) making it hard for civil society organizations and media to confirm suspicions that political parties and individual candidates received contributions which exceeded the legal limit.

        For the presidential election, the group found that candidate Prabowo Subianto did not disclose the number of individuals, corporations and other external groups donating his campaign. Prabowo's campaign also did not fully disclose in kind contributions it received by disclosing only the number of goods received and not detailing its market retail price.

        Meanwhile the campaign for his rival Joko Widodo, lists 11,775 contributors but only 101 submitted copies of their identification cards and 189 returned a special form for campaign contributors.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) violation of contribution limits, 2) violation of expenditure limits, and 3) financial contributions that circumvent the regulatory framework. The objective of this question is to learn more about the local context, so please explain the cases in as much detail as relevant.

        Sources

        Interview with Veri Junaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem, July 25, 2014. Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Coordinator of Political Corruption, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014. Interview with Eka Satya Laksamana, member of Bawaslu Banten, August 4, 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Politik Uang, 2014: Dana Kampanye Pilpres 2014 Belum Transparan (Election Finance Not Yet Transparent) http://www.politikuang.net/id/content/dana-kampanye-pilpres-2014-belum-transparan

  • expand button!

    Reporting and Public Disclosure

    More about category
    composite
    43
    • expand button!
      Reporting Requirements to the Oversight Entity
      More about category
      • expand button!
        21
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates report itemized contributions and expenditures both during and outside electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        Law 2/2011, in article 34, states: (1) Political parties are obliged to submit an accountability report on the income and expenditure of financial subsidy from the National/Regional Budget as referred to in Article 34 paragraph (1) letter c to be submitted to the Supreme Audit Board (BPK) annually to be audited in no later than 1 (one) month after the end of the fiscal year. (2) Audit of the financial Reports as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be conducted in 3 (three) months after the end of the fiscal year. (3) The result of the audit of the financial report as referred to paragraph (2) shall be submitted to the political party in no later than 1 (one) month after being audited.

        So, outside of campaigns, parties must submit annual reports to the BPK in which they account for their use of state funding.

        Further, by article 39 of the same law: (1) Political Parties financial management shall be conducted in a transparent and accountable manner. (2) Political Parties financial management as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be audited by a public accountant every 1 (one) year and announced periodically. (3) Political Parties are obliged to formulate financial statements for the auditing purpose of the fund which includes: a. report on the realization of the Political Party’s budget; b. balance sheet; and c. cash-flow report.

        Parties are not required to submit this information to an authority, but according to article 38 of Law 2/2008, the audited financial report of all revenue and spending must be available to the public. There is no requirement that this report include itemized information on contributions and expenditure.

        Individual candidates are not required to submit any reports outside of elections.

        During the legislative election period, which is 15 months long, parties and candidates for the DPD (Senate) must submit quarterly reports to the KPU in which they account for all itemized contributions and aggregate expenditures.

        Article 22 of the KPU Regulation 17/2013 states: (1) Political parties organizers as the election participants, in every level must give financial report (contributions received) to election commission (national, province, district/city)... (2) Senator candidates (DPD) must give financial reports (contributions received) to election commission at province level. (4). Financial reports on contributions received must give periodically every 3 months.

        Moreover, by article 134 of Law 8/2012, both parties and DPD candidates must submit a pre election report to the KPU: (1) Contesting Political Parties...shall submit initial report on Election Campaign Fund and the special bank account to KPU, Provincial KPU, and Municipal KPU no later than 14 days prior to the first day of the campaign. (2) Contesting candidates for DPD members shall submit the first report on the initial Election Campaign Fund and the special bank account for campaign to KPU through Provincial KPU in no later than 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the campaign implementation in the form of general meeting.

        Then, after elections, by article 135 of the same law, parties and DPD candidates must submit a report on campaign contributions and expenditures to an auditor appointed by the KPU. The auditor will review the report, and submit it to the KPU, who then must announce the results of the audit to the public: (1) The report on the campaign funds of Election Contesting Political Parties which includes expenditure and income shall be submitted to the office of the public accountant appointed by KPU in no later than 15 (fifteen) days after the polling day. (2) The expenditure and income report of the campaign funds of candidates for DPD members shall be submitted to the office of the public accountant appointed by KPU in no later than 15 (fifteen) days after the polling day. (3) The office of the public accountant shall submit the audit result to KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU in no later than 30 (thirty) days after the report is received as referred to in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2). (4) KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU shall convey the audit result of the campaign funds of each contesting party in no later than 7 (seven) days after KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU receive audit result from the public accountant office. (5) KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU shall announce the result of the audit of the campaign funds to the public in no later than 10 (ten) days after the audit result report is received.

        There is no requirement regarding the complete itemization of submitted financial reports.

        Finally, presidential candidates must submit to the KPU pre and post election reports of all contributions and expenditures during the campaign period. Article 99 of Law 42/2008 states: (1) Candidates and campaign teams at the national level shall report to the KPU all campaign funds received and spent from 1 day before the campaign starts and 1 day after the end of the campaign. (2) The report of campaign funds to the KPU must include the name or identify of all contributors, address, and phone numbers. (3) The KPU shall announce the receipt of reports to the public through the mass media within one day of receiving the reports.

        Article 100 of the same law requires that candidates must also report on the use of campaign funds: (1) Candidates and campaign teams must report on the use of campaign funds...

        All reports must be submitted to a public accountant appointed by the KPU no later than 14 days after the conclusion of the campaign. The KPU must announce the results of the audit no more than 7 days after its conclusion.

        In sum, parties must report contributions and expenditures during campaign periods, and keep records of their accounts outside of the campaign period. They must also submit reports on their use of state funding on an annual basis. DPD candidates and presidential candidates must report contributions and expenditures only during campaign periods. Only contributions are required to be itemized.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Presidential candidates and DPD candidates are legally required to report itemized contributions received during the campaign season (by KPU regulation 17 of 2013 and 2014). However, the reporting of itemized expenditures is not required. Instead, only an overview of expenditures at a national scale must be reported.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates are required to report itemized contributions and expenditures to the oversight authority, both during and outside electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the requirement applies for itemized contributions, but not for itemized expenditures, or 2) it applies only during the electoral campaign but not outside it. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement exists, but it only applies to one actor (whether political parties and individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections http://www.rumahpemilu.com/public/doc/2012070510262804%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202011%20tentang%20Perubahan%20atas%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202008%20tentang%20Pertai%20Politik.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        PKPU Regulation 17/2013 on the Guidance of Campaign Finance Reports for Legislative Elections to National, Provincial, and District Parliaments and Senate http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/PKPU%20No.%2017%20Th%202013.pdf

        Reviewer's sources: PKPU Regulation 17/2014 on Presidential Election Campaign Finances http://www.kpud-bogorkab.go.id/images/publikasi/PKPU%2017%20TH%202014%20TTG%20DANA%20KAMPANYE%20PILPRES.pdf

        PKPU Regulation 17/2013 on the Guidance of Campaign Finance Reports for Legislative Elections to National, Provincial, and District Parliaments and Senate http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/PKPU%20No.%2017%20Th%202013.pdf

      • expand button!
        22
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a monthly basis during the electoral campaign.More about indicator

        During campaign periods, parties and DPD candidates must submit quarterly financial reports to the KPU every three months, in addition to pre and post election reports in which they account for contributions received and expenditures made. The campaign period for legislative elections is 15 months long.

        Article 22 of the KPU Regulation 17/2013: (1) Political parties organizers as the election participants, in every level must give financial report (contributions received) to election commission (national, province, district/city)... (2) Senator candidates (DPD) must give financial reports (contributions received) to election commission at province level. (4). Financial reports on contributions received must give periodically every 3 months.

        Article 134 of Law 8/2012: (1) Contesting Political Parties...shall submit initial report on Election Campaign Fund and the special bank account to KPU, Provincial KPU, and Municipal KPU no later than 14 days prior to the first day of the campaign. (2) Contesting candidates for DPD members shall submit the first report on the initial Election Campaign Fund and the special bank account for campaign to KPU through Provincial KPU in no later than 14 (fourteen) days prior to the first day of the campaign implementation in the form of general meeting.

        Article 135 of Law 8/2012: (1) The report on the campaign funds of Election Contesting Political Parties which includes expenditure and income shall be submitted to the office of the public accountant appointed by KPU in no later than 15 (fifteen) days after the polling day. (2) The expenditure and income report of the campaign funds of candidates for DPD members shall be submitted to the office of the public accountant appointed by KPU in no later than 15 (fifteen) days after the polling day. (3) The office of the public accountant shall submit the audit result to KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU in no later than 30 (thirty) days after the report is received as referred to in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2). (4) KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU shall convey the audit result of the campaign funds of each contesting party in no later than 7 (seven) days after KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU receive audit result from the public accountant office. (5) KPU, Provincial KPU, and Regency/Municipal KPU shall announce the result of the audit of the campaign funds to the public in no later than 10 (ten) days after the audit result report is received.

        Presidential candidates must submit a pre and post election report to an auditor appointed by the KPU. The campaign period for presidential election is 1 month long.

        Article 99 of Law 42/2008: (1) Candidates and campaign teams at the national level shall report to the KPU all campaign funds received and spent from 1 day before the campaign starts and 1 day after the end of the campaign. (2) The report of campaign funds to the KPU must include the name or identify of all contributors, address, and phone numbers. (3) The KPU shall announce the receipt of reports to the public through the mass media within one day of receiving the reports.

        Article 100 of the same law: (1) Candidates and campaign teams must report on the use of campaign funds...

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report monthly their financial information to the oversight authority during the electoral campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a quarterly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections http://www.rumahpemilu.com/public/doc/2012070510262804%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202011%20tentang%20Perubahan%20atas%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202008%20tentang%20Pertai%20Politik.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        PKPU Regulation 17/2013 on the Guidance of Campaign Finance Reports for Legislative Elections to National, Provincial, and District Parliaments and Senate http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/PKPU%20No.%2017%20Th%202013.pdf

      • expand button!
        23
        Score
        NO
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a quarterly basis outside of electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        Political parties must submit annual reports to the Supreme Audit Bureau in which they account for their use of state funds (if they have received such funds). They must also document all contributions and expenditure, and have their records audited on an annual basis. However, the results of those audits are not required, in law, to be submitted to any authority.

        From Article 34 of Law 2/2011 on Political Parties: (1) Political parties are obliged to submit an accountability report on the income and expenditure of financial subsidy from the National/Regional Budget as referred to in Article 34 paragraph (1) letter c to be submitted to the Supreme Audit Board (BPK) annually to be audited in no later than 1 (one) month after the end of the fiscal year. (2) Audit of the financial Reports as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be conducted in 3 (three) months after the end of the fiscal year. (3) The result of the audit of the financial report as referred to paragraph (2) shall be submitted to the political party in no later than 1 (one) month after being audited.

        Article 39: (1) Political Parties financial management shall be conducted in a transparent and accountable manner. (2) Political Parties financial management as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be audited by a public accountant every 1 (one) year and announced periodically. (3) Political Parties are obliged to formulate financial statements for the auditing purpose of the fund which includes: a. report on the realization of the Political Party’s budget; b. balance sheet; and c. cash-flow report.

        There is no legal obligation for Senatorial and Presidential candidates to report on financial information outside of campaign periods. Indeed, there is a glaring loophole in the Indonesia political finance system. Currently, Indonesia is using an open list party system; until a 2008 Consitutional Court decision (Putusan MK Nomor 22-24/PUU-VI/2008), however, the country used a closed list system. Campaign finance regulations have not been updated to account for this change--candidates for the DPR from political parties are under no obligation to declare and provide financial reports inside or outside campaigns.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report quarterly their financial information to the oversight authority outside of electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a yearly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

      • expand button!
        24
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do political parties and individual candidates report itemized financial information monthly?More about indicator

        During the election, political parties and Senate candidates must give financial reports periodically every 3 months and also initial and final financial reports. For political parties candidates, they have to submit their financial report to political parties, so it is the responsibility of political parties to make consolidated a financial report, not the candidates. Presidential candidates must submit pre and post election reports.

        This is the financial report of PAN (National Mandate) Party to KPU in recent Legislative Elections as an example. PAN submitted reports to KPU from initial financial report and detailed of contribution, mostly from its candidates and also corporate contribution. PAN party received IDR 142.22 billion and spent IDR 130.93 for operational (http://kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/08PANDK9.pdf).

        There is also an audit report by an independent accounting firm (http://kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/8.PAN%28OK%29_.pdf ). The audit found several contributions were not equipped with tax number as required by regulation. There was no violation of campaign finance, such as contribution above the limit. In general, PAN and other political parties submit itemized financial reports.

        In law, presidential candidates have to submit pre and post election reports to KPU--in practice, they did so during the 2014 elections. All the submitted financial reports are available at KPU’s website, including audit reports by independent accounting firms for each candidate. In the audit report for Jokowi, the auditor found a lot of contributions that lacked ID information, particularly small contributions that were made via bank account transfers and that the auditor, consequently, could not access because of bank privacy regulations.

        In sum, parties and candidates report on their financial information more than quarterly, but less than monthly, during the campaign season. Reports often do not contain all accounts.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates report on their financial information monthly, and 2) the reports include both itemized contributions and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the reports are occasionally general rather than itemized or don't contain all accounts, or 2) the reporting frequency is quarterly.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates rarely or never file reports, 2) the reports are filed but are rarely or never itemized or refer only to either contributions or expenditures, or 3) the reporting frequency is less than quarterly.

        Sources

        Interview with Veri Junaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem (Indonesian NGO focus on election, July 25, 2014). Interview with Daniel Zuchron, Member of Bawaslu (July, 26, 2014). Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch (Indonesian anti corruption NGO, August 8, 2014).

        List of campaign contribution to National Mandate Party (PAN) National Headquarter for period of January 11 - December 27, 2013. http://kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/8.%20DanaKampanyePANPer1.pdf

        List of campaign contribution to National Mandate Party (PAN) National Headquarter for period of December 28, 2013 - March 2, 2014. http://kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/08_PAN.pdf

        Initial campaign fund in official account of National Mandate Party (PAN) National Headquarter http://kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/08PANReksus.pdf

        Initial campaign report of National Mandate Party (PAN) National Headquarter http://kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/08PANDK9.pdf

        Audit report of PAN financial campaign report on agreed upon procedure by independent auditor (Sriyadi, Elly&Rekan) http://kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/8.PAN%28OK%29_.pdf

        Audit report of Prabowo-Hatta President candidate campaign reort on agreed upon procedure by independent auditor (Teguh Heru&Rekan) http://www.kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/101.PUSAT.pdf

        Audit report Jokowi-Kalla President candidate campaign reort on agreed upon procedure by independent auditor (Erfan&Rakhmawan) http://www.kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/NASIONAL.pdf

      • expand button!
        25
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do financial reports by political parties and individual candidates include all types of contributions?More about indicator

        Political parties and candidates submitted their financial reports to the Election Commission in accordance with the law during the most recent elections. However, their reports, according to Zuchron and Dahlan, lacked the requisite level of detail, and included very little on their contributors. Zuchron further asserts that the reports were in fact untrue. An examination of the reports submitted by presidential candidates in the 2014 elections shows that the reports lacked detail, were rarely if ever itemized, recorded no information on expenditures, and only provided the names of contributors without any additional information.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) reports include an itemized list of all contributions indicating their type (in-kind, cash where allowed, etc.) and amount (estimated value for in-kind contributions), and 2) contain donors' names and addresses (or other personal identifier).

        A 50 score is earned where only one of the two conditions listed in the 100 criteria is met.

        A 0 score is earned where neither condition is met.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, Member of Bawaslu (July 26, 2014) Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch (August, 8, 2014). Interview with Veri Djunaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem (July 25, 2014)

        President candidates financial report examples with lack of contributors details:

        Tim Kampanye Nasional Prabowo Subianto – Hatta Rajasa. Daftar Laporan Penerimaan Dana Kampanye Periode II, 4 Juni – 6 Juli 2014. (List of contribution to Prabowo Subianto-Hatta Rajasa, 2nd report period, June 4 – July 6, 2014). http://www.kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/DKPPIIIall672014.pdf

        Tim Kampanye Nasional Joko Widodo – Jusuf Kalla. Daftar Laporan Penerimaan Dana Kampanye Periode II, 4 Juni – 6 Juli 2014. (List of contribution to Joko Widodo – Jusuf Kalla, 2nd report period, June 4 – July 6, 2014). http://www.kpu.go.id/koleksigambar/DKPPII2d.pdf

    • expand button!
      Availability of Electoral Campaigns' Financial Information to the Public
      More about category
      • expand button!
        26
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, financial information from political parties and individual candidates must be available to the public.More about indicator

        The regulations stipulate that the financial reports of political parties and Senatorial and presidential candidates submitted to authorities must be made available to the public through websites or bulletin boards in front of KPU offices. Where political parties' annual audits are concerned, the law states that they must be open to the public. In no case are any requirements on format specified.

        Law 2/2008 on Political Parties, Article 38: The audit result of political parties especially on revenue and spending, are open to access by society.

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 100 ... (5) Election commission will announce the audit report of President candidates campaign finance at least 10 days after receiving audit report of public accounting firm.

        Election Commission regulation (PKPU) number 17 year 2013 (1) Election Commission (KPU), Province KPU and District/City KPU announce to the public the reports of donations to political parties. (2) Provincial chapters of the KPU, on behalf of the National KPU, shall announce to the public the reports of donations to Senateor candidates. (3) The announcement of donation reports shall be made through the website or bulletin board of the KPU, Province KPU and District/City KPU at least 3 days after receiving report from political parties and Senatorial candidates.


        Peer reviewer comment: According to the 8/2012 Law on Legislative Elections article 135, political parties and individual DPD candidates must submit reports on campaign contribution and expenditure to an appointed public accounting firm latest 15 days after election day. The accounting firm then conducts an audit of the report for the next 30 days to be submitted to the KPU.

        The result of the audit are announce to political parties 7 days after the accounting firm finish their job and to the public 10 days after the audit result are submitted to the KPU.

        Article 137 of the same law can terminate the accounting firm’s contract for not providing accurate information in the audit, while article 138 stipulates that political parties and individual DPD candidates could have their election result annuled for providing an inaccurate campaign finance report as well as facing a maximum one year jail term and Rp 12 million fine according to article 280.

        The Law 2/2008 on Political Parties only requires political parties to report expenditures which originate from public funding, as stipulated on article 13. The same article also says political parties must record the source and amount of contributions received and be open to the public about such records, but technical regulation detailing how this should be done, does not exist.

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, articles 135 and 137 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf

        Law 2/2008 on Political Parties, article 13 http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/UUNo.2Tahun_2008.pdf

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where in law financial information of political parties and individual candidates must be made available to the public, whether online or digitally within two days of request.

        A MODERATE score is earned where financial information must be made available to the public, but no requirement exists regarding cost, format or number of days within which it must be made available.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 2/2008 on Political Parties, Article 38 http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/UUNo.2Tahun_2008.pdf

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 100 (5) www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Election Commission Regulation (PKPU) 17/2013, Article 23 http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/PKPU%20No.%2017%20Th%202013.pdf

      • expand button!
        27
        Score
        25
        In practice, to what extent can citizens easily access the financial information of all political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        Regarding the financial reports of political parties during the campaign season, they were easy to obtain via the KPU website. However, in order to get detailed information, including receipts of expenditures, citizens must go to the physical office of the election commission to make copies from the original, as only general information is available online.

        For financial reports outside of the campaign season, there is no obligation for parties to submit reports to the KPU. Political parties only submit annual financial reports on their use of state funds to the Supreme Audit Institution, which then audits the reports.

        However, political parties get money not only from government aid, but also from membership dues and contribution from individual and corporation respectively. Therefore, the submitted report to Supreme Audit Institution is not a comprehensive one, since it only covers activities funded by government aid. This information is available to the public in practice.

        Dahlan from Indonesia Corruption Watch was trying to obtain financial reports of political parties in 2013. For reports submitted to Supreme Audit Institution, all of nine political parties at national level granted the report to him. Nonetheless, when he requested detailed reports, not only the usage of public funds, but all of the funds managed by political parties, he found it exceedingly difficult to obtain reports. Dahlan had to fight the Commission in order to obtain the comprehensive financial reports (from all sources of income) of parties outside of the campaign season.

        Another instance indicating the lack of transparency in party finances can be found in the case of an NGO at West Nusa Tenggara, FITRA NTB. FITRA NTB requested financial report from the Golkar party branch. The party refused and FITRA NTB went to the local Information Commission to settle the dispute. The Commission stated in the adjudication process that financial report of political party is a public document that could be accessed by any citizen. Instead of granting the report, Golkar Party branch sued FITRA NTB and Information Commission at civil court for IDR 1 billion. The suit was rejected by judges but the financial report has still not been granted.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online, 2) it can be obtained digitally within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily digital or in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        Interview with Veri Junaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem (July 25, 2014) Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch (August 8, 2014).

        Seknas Fitra, "Golkar lawsuit rejected by judges." May 8, 2014.
        http://seknasfitra.org/gugatan-partai-golkar-ntb-di-tolak/?lang=en, accessed August 28, 2014.

        Link of examples of report from election commission website for Democrat and Golkar party http://kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/07PARTAI%20DEMOKRATDK9.pdf http://kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/05PARTAI%20GOLKARDK9.pdf

      • expand button!
        28
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent is financial information published in a standardized format?More about indicator

        In term of procedures, almost all political parties and candidates have provided their reports to the KPU according to the election commission standard, and those reports are publicly available. However, all of the interview sources consulted for this report stated that even though reports met the required formatting standards, their substance was extremely questionable.

        Auditors appointed by the KPU to review submitted reports only look at the format of the information provided by candidates/political parties, with no detailed analysis of the content. Indeed, in this kind of audit, according to sources, auditors do not investigate any circumstances but those found in the official financial report statement. As long as the financial report provides information which does not violate campaign regulation, auditors approve them. Auditors appointed by the KPU, in sum, are extremely lax.

        In other words, if candidates/political parties receive donation exceeding the legal limit, they simply don't record those donations, and refrain from depositing such donations in their official campaign account. Such donations are outside the scope of audits carried out by the KPU appointees, and as such, are never investigated. If parties and candidates simply adhere to the guidelines set forth by the IAI (Indonesian Accountant Association), known as the PSAK (Guidance for Financial Audit Standard) 45, their reports are approved by auditors.

        One example of a report that failed to adhere to the required guidlines is the Nadem Party, who failed to submit all of their legislative candidates' expenditures as donations to their parties, thus violating the standardized format.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where financial information for all political parties and individual candidates is available to the public in a standardized format.

        A 50 score is earned where only part of the information is published in a standardized format. A 50 score is also earned where the information is standardized, but it doesn't cover all political parties and individual candidates.

        A 0 score is earned where financial information is not available in a standardized format.

        Sources

        Interview with Veri Junaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem (July 25, 2014). Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch (August 8, 2014). Interview with Eka S. Laksamana, member of Bawaslu Banten (August 4, 2014).

        Link of all information related with campaign finance in recent 2014 legislative and Presidential Elections http://www.kpu.go.id/index.php/pages/detail/2014/267

        Humas KPU. 2014. Laporan Dana Kampanye 12 Parpol Dinyatakan Memenuhi Syarat, May 28, 2014. http://www.kpu.go.id/index.php/post/read/2014/3300/Laporan-Dana-Kampanye-12-Parpol-Dinyatakan-Memenuhi-Syarat

        Audit of Campaign Fund Report of Political Party, KPU work with KAP", by Wahyu Pradiyat Purnomo. Inilah.com. March 3, 2014. Accessed August 2014. http://nasional.inilah.com/read/detail/2079117/audit-laporan-dana-parpol-kpu-gandeng-kap#.U23xH1fazSc

      • expand button!
        29
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent do mainstream journalism media outlets use political finance data in their reporting?More about indicator

        Indonesian mainstream media widely covers the campaign finance issue, and uses official data from the reports published by the KPU to do so. For examples, the three news articles (Kompas, Vivanews and Tempo Daily) included as sources reference the financial reports of political parties.

        However, according to Willy Masaharu, journalists are not really digging into the data, and rely entirely on the analysis of NGOs or campaign finance experts to explain the intricacies of the issues.

        Rahmat (2014) only described total money in the parties account that reported in initial campaign report. Mahbub (2014) quoted the mismatch between income and spending of political parties campaign report, but he did not look after whether it was a technical problem or more serious problem in campaign finance. Vivanews (2014) published the total amount of campaign funding from 10 political parties that exceed IDR 3.1 trillion, but it did not explore whether there is a problem or not in campaign finance.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three independent mainstream journalism media outlets have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their reporting.

        A 50 score is earned where one independent mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        A 0 score is earned where no mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        Sources

        Interview with Willy Masaharu, editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August 10, 2014.

        Fiansyah, Rahmat. 2014. Ini Daftar Laporan Awal Dana Kampanye Parpol (Here are initial report of parties campaign finance). Kompas.com, March 2, 2014. (http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/03/02/2124214/Ini.Daftar.Laporan.Awal.Dana.Kampanye.Parpol, accessed September 1, 2014).

        Vivanews. 2014. Dana Kampanye Partai di Pemilu 2014 Tembus Rp. 3,1 triliun (Parties campaign fund in 2014 election exceed IDR 3.1 trillion). Vivanews.co.id April 25, 2014. (http://politik.news.viva.co.id/news/read/499477-dana-kampanye-partai-di-pemilu-2014-tembus-rp3-1-triliun, accessed September 1, 2014)

        Mahbub, Amri. 2014. Lima Laporan Keuangan Partai Janggal (Five parties’ financial reports are doubtful). Koran Tempo, April 2, 2014. (https://senjadipelabuhankecil.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/lima-laporan-dana-kampanye-janggal/, accessed September 1, 2014).

      • expand button!
        30
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws?More about indicator

        Only a few reports document violations of campaign finance, focusing particularly on campaign donations. Most contributors will not openly declare the amount of their donations, especially if it's a large amount, and that makes it difficult to use official data to reveal breaches of the law.

        That said, interviewees suggest that violations are rampant. Two news articles included as sources bolster their case. The first documents irregularities found in the campaign finance reports submitted by 12 political parties during the most recent legislative elections--each of these parties reported that they'd spent no money.

        The second article reports that five parties that contested the election submitted reports that indicate they spent much more than they brought in. Such cases are indicative of widespread violations of campaign finance laws.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Interview with Willy Masaharu, Editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August 10, 2014.

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014.

        Ada Parpol Melaporkan Dana Kampanye Rp 0 (There is a Political Party Campaign Fund Reporting 0 Rupiah. Pikiran Rakyat, June 1, 2014. http://www.pikiran-rakyat.com/node/264992, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Mahbub, Amri. 2014. Lima Laporan Keuangan Partai Janggal (Five parties’ financial reports are doubtful). Koran Tempo, April 2, 2014. https://senjadipelabuhankecil.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/lima-laporan-dana-kampanye-janggal/, accessed September 1, 2014.

      • expand button!
        31
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying?More about indicator

        Indonesian media and journalists are quite aggressive in uncovering many cases of vote buying in the recent elections.

        For example, Rizal (2014) in detik.com writes that vote buying is widespread, and indeed, 52% of the elections violations mentioned in the media at large referenced vote buying.

        The second source quotes a member of KPU, who admitted that vote buying was rampant in the 2014 elections.

        In the third source, Purmono (2014), a journalist from Tempo wrote how the son of the Malang Head of District, Kresna Dewanata, was not sanctioned by the election court despite clear evidence that he managed a vote buying operation. Indeed, he was accused of distributing IDR 50,000 (USD 5), but due to a lack of witnesses, the prosecutor was unable to bring Dewanata to justice.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. During the 2014 legislative election the Indonesia Corruption Watch conducted a study in 15 provinces and recorded 313 cases of vote buying where participants were given cash or goods to attend a campaign rally.

        A Democratic Party legislative candidate identified as GM was even caught red handed by officials from the Elections Supervisory Committee In Tasikmalaya, West Java, distributing money to his constituents at his home.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014.

        Rizal, M. 2014. Money Politics, The Most Violations in 2014 Legislative Elections. Detik.com, May 11, 2014. (http://news.detik.com/pemilu2014/read/2014/05/11/183506/2579488/1562/money-politics-pelanggaran-paling-banyak-di-pileg-2014, accessed September 1, 2014)

        Okezone.com. 2014. KPU admit the massive money politics. May, 15, 2014. http://pemilu.okezone.com/read/2014/05/15/568/985303/kpu-akui-money-politics-pemilu-2014-masif, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Purmono, Abdi. 2014. The Son of Malang Head of District was escaped from the election sanction. Tempo.co, April 14, 2014. http://pemilu.tempo.co/read/news/2014/04/14/269570643/Anak-Bupati-Malang-Lolos-dari-Sanksi-Pemilu, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Politik Uang, 2014: Dana Kampanye Pilpres 2014 Belum Transparan (Election Finance Not Yet Transparent) http://www.politikuang.net/id/content/dana-kampanye-pilpres-2014-belum-transparan ;

        Tribun News, 2014: Satu Caleg DPR RI Tepergok Bagikan Uang di Tasikmalaya (Legislative Candidate Caught Handing Out Money in Tasikmalaya) http://www.tribunnews.com/regional/2014/04/09/satu-caleg-dpr-ri-tepergok-bagikan-uang-di-tasikmalaya

      • expand button!
        32
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent do civil society organizations use political finance data?More about indicator

        There are more than 3 civil society organizations using official political finance data. At the national level, Indonesia Corruption Watch, Perludem, Kemitraan, Transparency International Indonesia chapter (TI Indonesia), JPPR, and others have all used official data in their work. There are also numerous civil society organizations at the local level who are advocating transparency and accountability in regards to political financing.

        Perludem is an Indonesian NGO focusing on election issues. Perludem has published several policy papers to reform the campaign finance regulatiosn, particularly to enhance better transparency and accountability. Perludem is also advocating for bigger government subsidies for political parties in order to reduce corruption. The current government subsidy is too small to cover parties expenses and at the same time, political parties are unable to collect significant membership dues. To cover their expenses, then political parties rely on big donations from the rich, which leads to corrupt practices. If parties received more state funding, Perdulem has argued that they would have to improve their transparency and accountability. Moreover, government subsidy is much more transparent and accountable than corporate and individual donations, since it is public money that would be audited by Supreme Audit Institution and disbursed with certain and tight procedures.

        Kemitraan is a Jakarta based NGO focus on governance. It has published a series of policy papers on various issues, from election court, transparency of campaign finance, determination of constituency base, and more. In campaign finance, Kemitraan was working with numerous NGOs to monitor campaign finance in the election. In 2013, Kemitraan and Koppel conducted research to calculate and to estimate the revenue and spending of political parties at South Sulawesi Province. This study concluded that the real spending of both political parties and candidates is much higher than their official reports indicate.

        TI Indonesia also works on the transparency of campaign finance. In 2013, TI published their research on transparency of political financing. From 5 parties which agreed to grant their report, TI labled Gerindra Party as the most transparent in its financial report.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Indonesia Corruption Watch did an examination of campaign finance reports for the presidential election and found that both presidential candidates have not been transparent in reporting their campaign contribution and expenses.

        At local levels, KP2KKN a Semarang, a central Java based NGO, was monitoring local government budgets in the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years. KP2KKN suspected that local government budgets were diverted for political parties and candidates advantage prior to elections.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three civil society organizations have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their advocacy or awareness work.

        A 50 score is earned where one civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its advocacy or awareness work.

        A 0 score is earned where no civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its work.

        Sources

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014.

        Kemitraan and Kopel. 2013. Pembiayaan Partai Politik Sulawesi Selatan 2013. A report by Kemitraan and Komite Pemantau Legislatif (Kopel) Indonesia. http://kemitraan.or.id/books/pembiayaan-partai-politik

        Transparency International Indonesia Chapter report of political parties transparency index. 2013. http://ti.or.id/media/documents/2013/04/16/f/u/full_report.pdf

        JPPR (People Voter Eduction Network) policy analysis on political financing. 2014. http://www.rumahpemilu.org/in/read/4657/Kajian-JPPR-Tentang-Pelaporan-Dana-Kampanye-Caleg-DPR-RI-2014-

        Reviewer's sources: Politik Uang, 2014: Dana Kampanye Pilpres 2014 Belum Transparan (Election Finance Not Yet Transparent) http://www.politikuang.net/id/content/dana-kampanye-pilpres-2014-belum-transparan

      • expand button!
        33
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been political finance legal reforms or reform bills presented to the legislature in the last 10 years?More about indicator

        There were several revisions of election regulations, including party financing, during the last decade. Government and parliament passed a new law on Legislative Elections, Law 8/2012, to replace law number 8 year 2008. In terms of campaign finance, the new law increased the limit of donations for political parties from corporations, from IDR 5 billion to IDR 7.5 billion.

        There were also several revision of political parties regulation, from law number 2 year 2008 to law number 2 year 2011. However, related to party financing, the revision was on the increasing limit from previous regulation, from IDR 5 billion to IDR 7.5 billion for corporate donation. Currently, government and parliament are in the process of deliberating a special law on local election which was previously regulated by decentralization law.

        There was a combination of various interests in the revision on political parties and election laws. The existing political parties wanted to reduce the number of political parties in Indonesia to make a more simple process of decision making in the parliament. Fewer parties would lead to less complicated decision making. As such, policy makers created not only electoral thresholds but also parliament thresholds to reduce number of parties in parliament. To realize this interest, they had to amend political party and election law. At the same time, civil society and mass media were campaigning for greater transparency and accountability of campaign finance to prevent corruption. The deliberation process to amend laws gave opportunity for civil society to give recommendations to improve campaign finance regulation. Their recommendations were accepted by members of parliament because at the same time, they also wanted to increase the limit on individual and corporate contribution.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) political finance reforms, including bills passed, executive orders signed, court rulings and any other legal act that had a direct effect on existent political finance regulation, and 2) all legal reform attempts presented to the legislature even if they were not approved. Please describe the political context that produced the reforms or reform attempts.

        Sources

        Interview with Veri Junaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem

        DPR-RI. 2010. Academic Paper of The Revision of Law on Legislative Elections (from law number 10 year 2008 to law number 8 year 2012). (http://www.dpr.go.id/id/pansus/52/RUU-Perubahan-UU-No-10-Tahun-2008-Tentang-Pemilu-DPR-DPD-dan-DPRD-/na)

        DPR-RI.2010. Academic Paper of The revision of Law on political party (from law number 2 year 2008 to law number 2 year 2011). (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fahok.org%2Fsr%2FNASKAH%2520AKADEMIS%2520UU%252022%2520TAHUN%25202007%2520%281%29.doc&ei=M3MWVJbnMYvluQSH4GABw&usg=AFQjCNHtipYTBdmogxIyXcf1OP5YVBADA&sig2=M51YvIWEMt-210clFSK5Tw&bvm=bv.75097201,d.c2E)

        Hasanudin, Aco. 2012. Kelemahan UU Pemilu yang Baru Disahkan DPR (The Weakness of the new pass legislative election law). Tribunnews.com, April 13, 2014 http://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2012/04/13/kelemahan-uu-pemilu-yang-baru-disahkan-dpr, accessed September 15, 2014.

        Vivanews. 2010. Revisi UU Partai Disahkan Hari ini (The revision of Political party law passed today). http://politik.news.viva.co.id/news/read/194042-revisi-uu-partai-disahkan-hari-ini, accessed September 15, 2014.

        Kompas. 2008. UU Pilpres akhirnya disahkan (Presidential Election Law Finally Passed). Kompas.com, October 29, 2008. http://travel.kompas.com/read/2008/10/29/17483223/UU.Pilpres.Akhirnya.Disahkan, accessed September 15, 2014.

  • expand button!

    Third Party Actors

    More about category
    composite
    0
    • expand button!
      Applicability of the Law to Third-Party Actors
      More about category
      • expand button!
        34
        Score
        NO
        In law, third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority and the information is made publicly available.More about indicator

        No such reporting requirements exist. Campaign activities by non-party organizations such as think tanks, foundations, and volunteer committees are entirely unregulated in Indonesia.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors are required to report to the oversight authority itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, and 2) the information must be publicly available.

        A MODERATE score is earned where third-party actors are required to report itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, but the information is not required to be publicly available. A MODERATE score is also earned where regulations exist, but only apply to electoral campaigns of one actor (whether political party or individual candidate).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        There is no such regulation.

      • expand button!
        35
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority?More about indicator

        As no legal requirements exist, third party actors do not report on contributions and expenditures to any electoral authority.

        Indeed, during the most recent elections, there were numerous mass organizations and other independent organizations that campaigned in support of certain candidates and political parties. However, since these groups are not official campaign teams, they are not part of election regulation. Therefore, they are not reporting their revenue and spending to election commission. These organizations which campaigned for certain candidates and parties could be in various forms, such as think tanks, foundations, survey institutions or just a simple committee consisting of volunteers (Indonesia does not have a political action committee such as in US which have to declare their contribution).

        Here are examples of how various forms of organizations support particular candidate without being subjected to any reporting requirements. The first is KSPI (Indonesia Labor Union Confederation), one of the important labor unions in Indonesia. As a labor union, KSPI does not report to the Election Commission about their activities despite having mobilized labor to support presidential candidate Prabowo. Another example is the support by Denny JA to another president candidate, Jokowi. Denny JA is a well-known figure in polling services in Indonesia, a famous political consultant and the founder of Lingkaran Survey Indonesia, a private survey company. Denny JA was mobilising civil society to support Jokowi, providing survey services for Jokowi’s camp during the campaign season and advertising his support in newspapers. As a survey company, LSI did not report to the KPU, and as a private company which is not listed in the stock exchange, LSI does not have any obligation to open their financial information since access to information laws in Indonesia regulate only public institutions.

        Another example (Fathur, 2014): The supporters of Prabowo-Hatta, the President and Vice President candidates, declared their support at Rumah Polonia, the former President Soekarno’s house that supporters rented as their headquarter to coordinate campaign efforts. Hundreds of organizations came to that house to declare their support: Young Association of Indonesia Pentakosta Church (PGPI), Young Generation of Java and Aceh, Garuda Nusantara, etc. As long as the supporter organizations did not contribute to the official campaign account, their contribution was not recorded and reported. In fact, these organizations were organizing their own campaign, collecting and managing their own money outside the official campaign team.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all third-party actors report to an oversight authority both itemized contributions received and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where third-party actors report to an oversight authority either itemized contributions received or expenditures, but not both. A 50 score is also earned where the reports refer only to one type of third-party actor, but do not cover others.

        A 0 score is earned where third-party actors rarely or never report itemized contributions received or expenditures.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, member of Bawaslu, July 26 2014. Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014.

        Sadikin, Rendy. 2014. KSPI Labor Union Support Prabowo-Hatta. Tribunnews.com, June 2, 2014. (http://www.tribunnews.com/pemilu-2014/2014/06/02/buruh-kspi-dukung-prabowo-hatta, accessed September 1, 2014).

        Hidayat, Rahmat. 2014. Denny JA mobilizes civil society to support Jokowi. Tribunnews.com, May 13, 2014. (http://www.tribunnews.com/pemilu-2014/2014/05/13/denny-ja-gerakakan-civil-society-dukung-jokowi, accessed September 1, 2014)

        Example how independent organization, such as an association of retired military officers, supported particular candidates" Rizky, Doddy, Pepabri and PPAD Malang Support Prabowo, Wartamalang, June 21, 2014. http://wartamalang.com/2014/06/pepabri-dan-ppad-malang-dukung-prabowo-hatta/

        Rochman, Fathur. 2014. As of Friday there are 348 support for Prabowo-Hatta at Rumah Polonia. Kompas.com, June 6, 2014. http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/06/06/1957595/Hingga.Jumat.Siang.Ada.348.Deklarasi.untuk.Prabowo-Hatta.di.Rumah.Polonia, accessed September 1, 2014.

      • expand button!
        36
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent can journalists and citizens easily access the financial information of third party actors, including the political spending of those actors in support of political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        There is no information available from third party actors. Even survey companies and professional political consultants which support particular candidates are reluctant to share their sources of money for their survey and other activities.

        An interesting example of the reticence of third party actors to disclose their financial informaiton can be found in recent the Presidential elections in Indonesia. After the election, there were several survey companies that released their prediction of election victor. 7 credible election institutions predicted that Jokowi was the winner but 4 other survey companies claimed that Prabowo had won.

        Journalists tried to determine whether any of the latter four companies were financed by Prabowo or his supporters. Husin Yazid, the director of Puskaptis, one of the four companies, was interviewed by journalists and he said the survey was self-funded, cost IDR 1.2 billion (Krisnamusi, 2014). Furthermore, he said that his company, which even lacks an official office, is so rich it has a “money tree” (Damarjati, 2014). But he refused to give more detail on the source of their contributions received.

        In general, even credible survey institutions were reluctant to disclose where their funding comes from. A well-known survey company, Lingkaran Survey Indonesia, founded by Denny JA, claimed that the money for survey was from their own fund (Solopos, 2014). Sources doubt that this is possible, as surveys are very expensive in Indonesia, and LSI is a small, private company. More doubts arose regarding the real donors behind “Obor Rakyat”, a tabloid which conducted a smear campaign against Jokowi. When journalists asked the editor of OR about the paper's funding, he claimed he himself provided the tabloid's money. where the money come from, the editor of Obor Rakyat said that it was funded by his own money (Movarita, 2014).

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online or in hard copy at the cost of photocopying, 2) it can be obtained within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        Interview with Willy Masaharu, Editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August 10, 2014 Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014 Interview with Veri Djunaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem, July 25, 2014

        Damarjati, Danu. 2014. Puskaptis has “Money Tree” but do not have an office. Detik.com, July 15, 2014. http://news.detik.com/read/2014/07/15/160141/2637838/1562/puskaptis-punya-pohon-duit-tapi-tak-punya-kantor?ntprofil, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Krisnamusi, Insan Akbar. 2014. Puskaptis claimed using its own money IDR 1.2 billion for quick count survey, Pemilu, July 10, 214. http://pemilu.metrotvnews.com/read/2014/07/10/264074/puskaptis-klaim-rogoh-kocek-sendiri-rp1-2-miliar-untuk-quick-count, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Solopos. 2014. Different result of quick count. These are the donor of Puskaptis, LSI and IRC. Solopos.com, July 12, 2014. http://www.solopos.com/2014/07/12/perbedaan-quick-count-inilah-penyandang-dana-puskaptis-lsi-dan-irc-518896, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Movarita, Ambaranie. 2014. This is the donor of “Tabloid Obor Rakyat”. Kompas.com, July 11, 2014.
        http://nasional.kompas.com/read/2014/07/11/13534841/Ini.Penyandang.Dana.Tabloid.Obor.Rakyat, accessed September 1, 2014.

      • expand button!
        37
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Please describe how third party-actors (even if they are not regulated by your country's laws) obtain contributions and spend in support of political parties and/or individual candidates.More about indicator

        In Indonesia, third party organizations frequently request funds from rich people or corporations in order to undertake campaigns in support of particular candidates or parties. Third party organizations may be mass organizations, think tanks, polling companies or professional political consultancy firms. With the money they raise, third party organizations organize campaigns, media briefing, and advertisements in the mass media.

        Third party actors are not covered by political finance regulations. To avoid limits and prohibited donations, corporations prefer to contribute to third parties instead of donating directly to campaigns. Third party actors raise funds from businessmen and companies to support candidates and parties. Such schemes avoid restrictions on donations and allows corporations and businesses to subvert regulations on donations, meaning that they do not have to openly declare their contributions.

        A relevant example is the activity of survey companies who often provide skewed survey results that boost their selected candidate, as well as political consultancy services. Denny JA, the founder of Lingkaran Survey Indonesia (LSI), a survey company and also a political consultant, blatantly campaigned in support of Jokowi in the last elections. Previously, LSI was supporting Aburizal Bakrie who was running as president candidate, but Bakrie withdrew his candidacy due to a lack of public support. LSI ran advertisements on TV and in printed media to promote the candidacy of first Bakrie, then Jokowi. When interviewed by journalists, LSI claimed that it used its own funds to do so, but this is impossible to verify because of the lack of disclosure regulations (Rahmat, 2014).

        Other active campaigns undertaken by third-party organizations include FPI (Islamic Defender Front) and FBR (Indigenous Betawi Forum) (Fajerial, 2014). The Betawi are an indigenous and margalinized community in Jakarta. Both FPI and FBR supported Prabowo during the campaign season and in Indonesia, both had image as thuggish organizations which often used violence in their actions. They did active campaigns to convince people to support Prabowo, particularly among Betawi people and the supporters of FPI. Both organizations raise fund through illegally excercising control over parking areas and other racketeering practices (Wilson, 2008). However, since neither organization was part of the official campaign team, they did not have any obligation to publish their financial reports, and were subject to no political finance regulations.

        Scoring Criteria

        To answer this question please: 1) list the types of third-party actors that exist in your country and describe how they work to influence campaigns, 2) explain how important such actors are or not in the context of campaigns, including whether their expenditures are substantial in relation to that of political parties and individual candidates, and 3) if documented evidence indicates they circumvent laws intended to regulate political finance, please explain how and include references to the evidence.

        Sources

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014. Interview with Veri Djunaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem, July 25, 2014. Interview with Eka S. Laksamana, member of Bawaslu Banten, August 4, 2014.

        Hidayat, Rahmat. 2014. Denny JA mobilizes civil society to support Jokowi. Tribunnews.com, May 13, 2014. (http://www.tribunnews.com/pemilu-2014/2014/05/13/denny-ja-gerakakan-civil-society-dukung-jokowi, accessed September 1, 2014).

        Fajerial, Edwin. 2014. FPI and FBR support Prabowo. They can be soft: Mahfud. Tempo.co, June 1, 2014. (http://pemilu.tempo.co/read/news/2014/06/01/269581584/FPI-dan-FBR-Dukung-Prabowo-Mahfud-Mereka-Bisa-Lunak, accessed September 2, 2014)

        Wilson, Ian. 2008. ‘As long as It’s halal’: Islamic Preman at Jakarta. In Fealy, Greg and Sally White.ed. 2008. Expressing Islam. Religious Life and Politics in Indonesia. Singapore: ISEAS.

  • expand button!

    Monitoring and Enforcement

    More about category
    composite
    78
    • expand button!
      Monitoring Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        38
        Score
        YES
        In law, political finance information is monitored by an independent oversight authority.More about indicator

        The KPU is the authority vested with the authority, by law, to monitor political finance information in Indonesia (see article 6 of Law 8/2012). KPU, as noted earlier, appoints independent auditors to review financial reports from parties and candidates during the campaign season. Auditors must report their results to the KPU. If parties or candidates fail to submit their accounts to the KPU-appointed auditors in a timely fashion, KPU can cancel their candidacy (articles 90, 137 of Law 8/2012).

        If auditors report irregularities, Bawaslu, which by Article 74 of Law 15/2011, has the mandate to investigate any report of violations related to elections, including campaign finance violations. Should Bawaslu uncover any evidence of criminal conduct in its investigations, it issues recommendations to KPU and/or the National Police for administrative sanctions or prosecution (article 123 of Law 8/2012). Bawaslu has no authority to impose sanctions.

        In sum, KPU monitors political finance information, but all investigatory powers reside in Bawaslu.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) an independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, and 2) the authority has investigation and audit powers.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, but doesn't have investigation or audit powers.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 15/2011 on Election Organizer, article 74 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu152011.pdf

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, articles 6, 7, 88, 90, 123, and 125. http://www.rumahpemilu.com/public/doc/2012070510262804%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202011%20tentang%20Perubahan%20atas%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202008%20tentang%20Pertai%20Politik.pdf (Engilsh) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

      • expand button!
        39
        Score
        YES
        In law, high-level appointments to the oversight authority are based on merit.More about indicator

        According to article 12 of Law 15/2011, to select members of the election commission (KPU) and the election oversight body (Bawaslu), the President establishes a selection team consisting of eminent persons to act as the representatives from government and society. According to articles 14 and 88, the selection committee then submits the names of 14 candidates for the election commission (article 14) and 10 candidates for the election oversight body to the President (article 88). Then the President forwards the candidates to parliament to select 7 member of election commission and 5 member of election oversight body.

        By articles 11 and 85 of Law 15/2011, candidates must not only understand election issues but they must also must be independent and non-partisan. Candidates have to resign from political parties, state owned enterprises jobs and any government position. After being elected, both members of KPU and Bawaslu have to work full time.

        Law 15/2011: Article 12 (1)President establish selection team with maximum 11 members with the consideration of women representation. (2) Selection team consist of government and society representative.

        Article 14 President submitted 14 names of candidates or twice the number of members of election commission to the parliament (DPR), at least 14 working days after receiving candidates names.

        Article 88 President submitted 10 names of candidates or twice the number of Bawaslu members to the parliament (DPR), at least 14 working days after receiving candidates names.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process; and 2) appointees must be free of conflicts of interest due to personal loyalties, family connections, political party affiliations, business partners or other biases.

        A MODERATE score is earned where high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process, but the regulations don't forbid appointments involving conflicts of interest or other biases.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 15/2011 on Election Organizer, articles 11, 85. www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu152011.pdf

      • expand button!
        40
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent are high-level appointments to the oversight authority based on merit?More about indicator

        The nominating selection committee established by the government to choose the members of KPU and Bawaslu consists of civil society leaders and academics. The committee advertises the selection process in mass media, and is open to applications from any citizen who meet the requirements. The process is open and civil society organizations can monitor the process. Those elected as member of KPU and Bawaslu mostly have background as academician, NGOs or former local member of KPU/Bawaslu.

        The 5 current members of Bawaslu were elected by parliament from 10 candidates submitted by government. Prior to parliament's selection, the government appointed selection team organized an open recruitment process and nominated 10 people from hundreds of applicants after conducting a series of administrative checks and interviews conducted by the selection team. Journalists and NGOs observed interviews.

        The current chairperson of Bawaslu is a former member of a provincial election oversight body (Panwaslu) in Makassar, the capital of South Sulawesi Province. Before his appointment, he was a political science lecturer at Hasanudin University, Makassar. Other members also displayed substantial merit and no noted conflicts of interests. For example, Endang Wihdatiningtyas is Panwaslu member in Yogyakarta and a lawyer. Daniel Zuchron is former Director of JPPR (Network of Political Education for People), a national NGO which carries out voter education and has been monitoring election since 1999, the first election after the fall of Soeharto. Nelson Simanjuntak is former journalist and researcher at Perludem, a NGO focused on election issue. Interviewees report that all the appointed commissioners to both bodies are eminently qualified for their posts, display no conflicts of interest, and were selected in an open, advertised application process.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) there is an advertised competition and public vetting process, 2) candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed.

        A 50 score is earned where the public competition is usually advertised and the vetting process public, but exceptions exist. A 50 score is also earned where candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where there's rarely or never a public competition, or appointees are rarely selected on merit or without conflicts of interest or other biases.

        Sources

        Interview with Willy Masaharu, Editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August 10, 2014 Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014 Interview with Veri Djunaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem, July 25, 2014

        The background of current Bawaslu members can be accessed at its official website, http://www.bawaslu.go.id

        Profiles of the current KPU members can be accessed at the KPU site: http://www.kpu.go.id/index.php/pages/index/MzYw

      • expand button!
        41
        Score
        YES
        In law, the independence of high-level appointees is guaranteed.More about indicator

        According to Law 15/2011, KPU consists of 7 members and 5 years of tenure (article 8) and Bawaslu consists of 5 members and 5 years of tenure (article 72), both KPU and Bawaslu members can serve multiple terms. The members of the Election Oversight Body (Bawaslu) and the Election Commission (KPU) are independent and can only be dismissed only through a fair trial in the criminal court, especially if they're accused of involvement in criminal acts.

        Furthermore, by articles 28 and 100 of Law 15/2011, if accused of violations of the code of ethics, such as granting favor to certain parties or supporting certain candidates, members of Bawaslu and KPU can defend themselves in an open ethical court of the Honorary Council (DKPP - Dewan Kehormatan Penyelenggara Pemilu); the DKPP must verify the final dismissal decision.

        Both Bawaslu and KPU are independent institutions. They cannot be dismissed by the President or Parliament.

        KPU has the mandate to issue decisions, while Bawaslu can review cases and issue recommendations to KPU and the national police regarding sanctions and prosecution (see Law 8/2012).

        Law 15/2011 on Election Organizer, Article 27(2) Member of Election Commission can be dismissed a. Do not eligible anymore as a member of KPU b. Violating oath and code of ethics c. Out of duties for three consecutive months d. Sentence to imprisonment by a court decision for committing a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment of 5 years or more e. Sentence to imprisonment by a court decision for committing an election criminal offence. f. Do not attend the plenary meeting as his/her main duties and obligations for three times in a row for no apparent reason. g. proved to inhibit the KPU (national, province or city) in making a decision as the provisions of laws and regulations

        Article 28 (1) the dismissal of member of KPU who have been complied with article 27 (2a), (2b), (2c), (2f) and (2g), preceded by verification by Honorary Council (DKPP) based on a. written complaint from election organizer, election participants, campaign team, society and voter, and/or b. recommendation from parliament (DPR).

        Article 99 (2), Member of Election Oversight can be dismissed .... a. Violating oath and code of ethics b. Out of duties for three consecutive months ... d. Sentenced to imprisonment by a court decision that legally binding for a crime punishable for 5 years of more. e. Sentenced to imprisonment by a court decision that legally binding for an election crime. f. Not able to attend three consecutive meeting without acceptable reasons.

        Article 100 1. The dismissal of Election Oversight member must be preceded by verification by Honorary Council of Election Organizer based on complaints by election organisers, election participants or people with clear identity. ... 3. In the dismissal process, member of Election Oversight must have the right to defend him/herself in front of Honorary Council.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, 2) the law establishes security of tenure, and 3) removal or disciplinary actions are based on due process conducted by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A MODERATE score is earned where appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, BUT one of the second two conditions mentioned in the YES criteria is not met.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 15/2011 on Election Organizer, articles 8, 28, 72, 99 and 100 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu152011.pdf

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, articles 6, 7, 88, 90, 123. http://www.rumahpemilu.com/public/doc/2012070510262804%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202011%20tentang%20Perubahan%20atas%20Undang-undang%20Nomor%202%20Tahun%202008%20tentang%20Pertai%20Politik.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

      • expand button!
        42
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent is the independence of high-level appointees guaranteed?More about indicator

        There is no intervention or pressure on Bawaslu or KPU. According to Daniel Zuchron, member of Bawaslu, “So far, we are independent both in the recruitment process and daily operations. There is no political intervention on us." Eka Laksamana, member of Bawaslu Banten Province, also confirmed that there is no political pressure on Bawaslu. Sources likewise report that the security of tenure and due process of KPU members are respected, and the institution is not subject to fear and favor at the national level.

        The issue in Indonesia is not the pressure to the independence of Bawaslu or KPU. In many cases, particularly at local level during Governor/mayor election, the main problem is member of Bawaslu and KPU supporting particular candidate, either caused by corruption or other social relations.

        The recent dismissal of certain local election oversight bodies was ordered by the Honorary Council (DKPP) because members of the regional bodies supported certain candidates. Since the end of Legislative Elections, DKPP has fired 98 members of local KPU and local Bawaslu for violating the code of ethics (Iqbal, 2014). According to Head of DKPP, Jimly Asshiddiqie, those who are fired, are let go because they support certain candidates or political party (Iqbal, 2014). The trial process of DKPP is open and fair, and the suspects have the right to defend themselves.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - Prior to the study period, in the past, two members of the General Elections Commission (KPU) on two separate occassions abruptly quit their jobs and joined the Democratic Party. The first case Anas Urbaningrum who quit the KPU and join the Democratic Party in June 2005 to become chief of the party's political division. The second was Andi Nurpati who quit the KPU and join the same party in June 2010. She became the party's spokeswoman when Anas became chairman of the party. Both cases prompted many to question KPU's independence with academics and activists demanding tighter laws and regulations and stiffer penalties.

        Activists and academics in the past pointed that appointing members of the KPU involves a very political process: candidates are selected by the president and voted in by the House of Representatives. Also, activists and academics highlighted that there is no strict sanction for those unable to maintain their independence other than dishonorable discharge.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all of the following conditions are met: 1) appointees review cases and issue decisions without fear or favor from other branches of government, and 2) appointees are granted security of tenure and 3) no appointees are removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 50 score is earned where any of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees generally operate without fear or favor from other branches of government but exceptions exist, or 2) some but not all appointees are granted security of tenure, or 3) appointees are occasionally removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 0 score is earned where at least one of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees operate with fear or favor from other branches of government, or 2) are not granted security of tenure, or 3) are usually removed, disciplined or transferred without observing due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, member of Election Oversight Body, July 26, 2014 Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014 Interview with Willy Masaharu, Editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August, 10, 2014. Interview with Eka Satya Laksamana, Member of Election Oversight Body Banten Province, August 4, 2014.

        Iqbal, M. 2014. After Legislative Elections, DKPP has fired 98 member of KPU and Bawaslu. Detik.com, July 4, 2014. http://news.detik.com/read/2014/07/04/225325/2628509/1562/pasca-pileg-dkpp-sudah-pecat-98-anggota-kpu-dan-bawaslu, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Purwanto, "Anas Urbanigrum Resigns from KPU," Tempo, June 8, 2005. http://www.tempo.co/read/news/2005/06/08/05562176/Anas-Urbaningrum-Keluar-Dari-KPU

        Ardi Januar, "Joining Democrat, Andi Nurpati is Immoral," OKE Zone, June 23, 2010. http://news.okezone.com/read/2010/06/23/339/345793/gabung-demokrat-andi-nurpati-amoral

        "Menjaga Independensi Meningkatkan Kompetensi (Maintaining Independence Increasing Competence)", Ruma Pemilu, 2014. http://www.rumahpemilu.org/in/read/179/Menjaga-Independensi-Meningkatkan-Kompetensi ;

        Koran Sindo, "Independensi KPU (KPU's Independence)", Sindo News Editorial, 2013. http://nasional.sindonews.com/read/795952/16/independensi-kpu

      • expand button!
        43
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How does decision-making work in the oversight authority?More about indicator

        All decisions taken by Bawaslu and KPU are made consensually, in which all members must agree, as reported by interview sources and the head of KPU (Rinaldi, 2014). KPU issues decisions on sanctions, and sometimes cancels the candidacies of parties and candidates when they fail to submit their financial information in a timely fashion. For example, in March of 2014, KPU disqualified numerous parties due to their failure to meet reporting deadlines.

        Bawaslu rules on whether reported violations do in fact constitute violations of electoral laws. For example, Bawaslu recently collectively decided that speeches made by Jokowi outside of the official presidential campaign season violated electoral regulations. This decision was agreed upon by all members of the body (Sinaga, 2014).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - There is substantiated evidence indicating that the decision making of the KPU and the Bawaslu are not always free from being politicized or acts of corruption.

        On May 9 2014, the Election Organizer Honors Committee (DKPP) fired 20 General Elections Commission and Elections Supervisory Committee officials for violating code of ethics during the legislative election. Among those fired by the DKPP are 13 election officials in Pasuruan, East Java who refused to stage a revote despite allegations of poll fraud. It was later revealed that the officials were given each a motorcycle by a legislative candidate.

        Another election official fired by the DKPP was a member of the General Elections Commission’s office in Palopo, South Sulawesi following the discovery of Rp 8.2 million cash inside his car along with boxes of business cards belonging to several legislative candidates in the electoral region. Meanwhile several election officials were also fired for not disclosing current or past ties to political parties. (Jawa Pos, 2014).

        On August 21, 2014, the DKPP fired 9 election officials for misconduct during the presidential election (Huda, 2014) including five officials from the General Elections Commission office in Dogiyai, Papua for refusing to follow the Elections Supervisory Committee’s recommendation for a revote following allegations of fraud and two from Banten province for receiving bribes from a political party official.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe: 1) the composition of the decision-making body within the oversight authority, 2) the type of decisions it's allowed to make and makes in practice, and 3) in which cases majority is required. If there have been well substantiated complaints about the decision-making process being ineffective or politicized please explain.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, Member of Bawaslu, July 26, 2014. Interview with Veri Djunaidi, Deputy Director of Perludem, July 25, 2014.

        Rinaldi, Randa. 2014. KPU decision is collective collegial: Ferry. Tribunnews.com, August 22, 2014. http://www.tribunnews.com/pemilu-2014/2014/08/22/ferry-keputusan-kpu-bersifat-kolektif-kolegial, accessed September 2, 2014.

        Sinaga, Eri Komar. 2014. Bawaslu meets to evaluate Jokowi’s speech. Tribunnews.com, June 2, 2014. http://www.tribunnews.com/pemilu-2014/2014/06/02/gelar-rapat-bawaslu-bahas-evaluasi-pidato-jokowi-di-kpu, accessed September 2, 2014.

        KPU Disqualify Political Parties in 39 Regency/Cities and 67 Provincial Offices. Tribunnews.com; March 15, 2014. http://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2014/03/15/kpu-diskualifikasi-partai-politik-di-39-kabkota-dan-67-dpd, accessed September 2, 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Jawa Pos, 2014: Putusan Pertama Bertabur Pemecatan (Massive Firing at First Verdict) http://new.jawapos.com/baca/artikel/751/Putusan-Pertama-Bertabur-Pemecatan

        Huda, Alamil, 2014: 9 Penyelenggara Pemilu Dipecat DKPP (9 Election Officials Sacked by DKPP) http://www.republika.co.id/berita/pemilu/berita-pemilu/14/08/21/nanf8e-9-penyelenggara-pemilu-dipecat-dkpp

      • expand button!
        44
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent does the authority have sufficient capacity to monitor political finance regulations?More about indicator

        Sources confirm that KPU has sufficient staff to monitor some incoming financial reports. It designates an independent auditor for each party and candidate, and the auditor must conduct an administrative audit of the relevant actor's financial information. Further, as is amply apparent in the number of times it has sanctioned parties and candiates that failed to submit reports, KPU has the capacity to recognize when some political finance reports are not submitted. For example, in March 2014, KPU disqualified a number of candidates and parties that did not report on their financial information as required by law.

        However, there are at least two problems in the auditing of campaign reports by political parties. First, there is the problem of human resources. According to Law 8/2012, the KPU must appoint auditors to undertake audits of the campaign reports of all political parties, not only at national level, but also their branches at provincial and district/city level. The amount of auditors available in Indonesia will not be enough if the audit is intended to cover all branches of all political parties.

        The second problem is the time limit for audits, which, according to the law, must be concluded within just 30 days. Auditors do not have time to check all of expenditures and revenues and do verifications within this time period. Therefore, to deal with the problem, auditors usually do only sampling audits. They will not audit all of political parties revenues and expenditures, but only select several items for examination. As an example, in the audit report of the PAN Party in the recent 2014 election, from 90 transactions reported in the official report, the auditor checked only 30 transactions, consisting of 20 revenue items and 10 expenditure items.

        Moreover the audit procedures carried out by auditing firms is "agreed upon procedures", an agreement procedure between auditor and political parties. As a consequence, auditing scope will be limited on the official financial report only and auditor will not look for any item outside the report. Thus, political parties will not provide any items that violated the campaign financial regulation, such as contribution above the limit or contribution from banned sources. In Indonesia, political parties should provide financial report and audited based on PSAK (Pernyataan Standar Audit Keuangan) 45, issued by Indonesia Accountant Association (IAI) as a standard for non-profit organization, including political party (Hafild, 2003), instead of "agreed upon procedure".

        It's worth noting here that Bawaslu is the authority to which citizens can submit any complaint regarding the conduct of elections. In law, Bawaslu is able to investigate those complaints, but can only issue recommendations to the relevant authorities regarding sanctions and prosecution. It is effectively a complaint center, nothing more. According to Daniel Zuchron, member of Bawaslu, his institution lacks the human resources to thoroughly review each of the complaints of electoral violations it receives during elections. Zuchron further states that most complaints are in fact filed by certain candidates and parties against their competitors.

        According Willy Masaharu (journalist) and Abdullah Dahlan (ICW), Bawaslu only waits for complaints and does not actively investigate potential violations of electoral laws. Eka Laksamana, member of Banten Bawaslu, acknowledged that his institution lacks staff and resources, and therefore they could not do proper follow up or investigations of election violations.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) the authority has sufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, and 2) it has sufficient staff to review all incoming reports.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the authority has insufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, or 2) its staff can only review half of all incoming reports.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the authority can't fulfill most of its essential functions due to budget constraints, or 2) its staff only has the capacity to review 25% or less of all incoming reports.

        Sources

        Interview with Willy Masaharu, Editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August 10, 2014 Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014 Interview with Daniel Zuchron, member of Bawaslu, July 26, 2014 Interview with Eka S. Laksamana, member of Bawaslu Banten, August 4, 2014.

        KPU Disqualify Political Parties in 39 Regency/Cities and 67 Provincial Offices. Tribunnews.com; March 15, 2014. ( http://www.tribunnews.com/nasional/2014/03/15/kpu-diskualifikasi-partai-politik-di-39-kabkota-dan-67-dpd, accessed September 2, 2014)

        Siregar, Karim. Audit-Dana-Parpol-Hanya-Formalitas-JPPR-Minta-Ppatk-Dan-Bawaslu-Ungkap-Dana-Mencurigakan (Party’s Audit a Formality, JPPR Wants PPATK Involved), Gresnews, 2014. http://www.gresnews.com/berita/politik/90305-audit-dana-parpol-hanya-formalitas-jprr-minta-ppatk-dan-bawaslu-ungkap-dana-mencurigakan-parpol

        Oktaveri, John. 2014. IAPI: 3 Alasan Dana Partai Politik Sulit Diaudit (IAPI: 3 Reasons Party Funds Difficult to be Audited), Bisnis.com, April 10, 2014. http://m.bisnis.com/pemilu/read/20140410/355/218476/iapi-3-alasan-dana-partai-politik-sulit-diaudit

        Audit Dana Kampanye, Pekerjaan Mustahil! (Campaign Audit, Impossible), Hukumu Online, 2014. http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/hol19875/audit-dana-kampanye-pekerjaan-mustahil

      • expand button!
        45
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent does the authority conduct investigations or audits when necessary?More about indicator

        In the recent legislative and presidental elections, despite Bawaslu's limited resources, it conducted more than three investigations of potential political finance misconduct. However, as noted in the previous indicator, Bawaslu totally lacks the capacity to thoroughly investigate all complaints received. Indeed, as Indonesia has 125 million voters, and 200,000 candidates competed in the 2014 elections, three investigations does not a competent authority make.

        According to Daniel Zuchron, he ordered a local Bawaslu branch in Gunung Kidul to investigate potential violations of political finance regulations (Dewi, 2014). Bawaslu also investigated Fadil Zon, the leader of Gerindra party, after he distributed more than IDR 50,000 (USD 5) to visitors and traders in a traditional market in Semarang City. The authority also looked into the son of Amien Ras, the founder of the National Mandate Party and a former presidential candidate, after two bags of money worth IDR 510 million (USD 43,000) were found in Yogyakarta. Party officers said the money was an honorarium for local party volunteers, but sources believe it may have been a slush fund (Suprapto, 2014).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. During the legislative elections, The Elections Supervisory Agency (Bawaslu) said it had received 111,456 complaints which ranges from election crime to technical and administrative violations. Of those reports at least 85 involved vote buying but only 40 cases where the Bawaslu was able to find evidence. One major problem, the Bawaslu said, was finding witnesses who were willing to testify in court.

        However the National Police has only investigated 5 cases of vote buying. Police also added that it can only investigate 73 cases out of 116 election crime cases received, which ranges from vandalism, vote rigging to document forgery. Of the 73, 28 cases actually went to prosecution.

        Police said that the 14 day deadline to conduct an election crime investigation stipulated by the Law 8/2012 on Legislative Election is not enough. Police further added that they are shortstaffed to handle election crime complaints, particularly with police officers also focusing on election security.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority conducted at least three investigations or audits during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 50 score is earned where the authority conducted at least one investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 0 score is earned where the authority didn't conduct any investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, member of Election Oversight Body, July 26, 2014. Interview with Willy Masaharu, Editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August 10, 2014. Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014

        Dewi, Fitri. 2014. 2014 Legislative Elections: Bawaslu pressures to investigate money politics. Bisnis.com, April 8, 2014.
        http://m.bisnis.com/pemilu/read/20140408/355/217810/pileg-2014-bawaslu-desak-periksa-dugaan-politik-uang-di-gunung-kidul, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Nugroho, Wisnu Adi. 2014. Central Java Bawaslu ordered city election oversight to investigate Fadli Zon. July 3, 2014. http://www.antarajateng.com/detail/bawaslu-jateng-instruksikan-panwaslu-periksa-fadli-zon.html, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Suprapto, Hadi. 2014. Bawaslu investigates the son of Amien Rais about two bag of money. Vivanews, April 15, 2014. http://politik.news.viva.co.id/news/read/497051-bawaslu-periksa-anak-amien-rais-soal-duit-2-karung, accessed September 1, 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Hukum Online, Polri Stop Penyidikan 15 Perkara Tindak Pidana Pemilu ("Stop the Police Crime Investigations"), April 14, 2014. http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt534bb9ca4564d/polri-stop-penyidikan-15-perkara-tindak-pidana-pemilu

        Hukum Online, Bawaslu Terima Banyak Laporan Pelanggaran Pemilu ("Bawaslu Thanks Many Reports of Election Violations"), April 12, 2014. http://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt5348c39541efd/bawaslu-terima-banyak-laporan-pelanggaran-pemilu

        Republika, Polri Terima 5 Laporan Politik Uang dari Bawaslu ("National Police Receives 5 Reports"), April 11, 2014. http://www.republika.co.id/berita/pemilu/berita-pemilu/14/04/11/n3u3w4-polri-terima-5-laporan-politik-uang-dari-bawaslu

      • expand button!
        46
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent does the authority publish the results of investigations or audits?More about indicator

        After the investigation and any follow up of public complaints on electoral practice, interviewees confirm that Bawaslu announces their findings in a press conference less than a month after the investigation's conclusion. Also the audits on campaign finance reports are easily obtained by the public, as the KPU announces and posts audit results publicly, and places the reports on its website within a month.

        However, interviewees emphasize that the problem is not public access, but substance. First the authority of Bawaslu is limited only to give recommendation to law enforcement agencies or KPU. A recommendation will not directly affect election participants or their campaign team. Secondly, the auditors appointed by KPU only do procedural audits, and carry out no sort of in-depth investigation to uncover fraud or violations.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority publishes reports of all its investigations or audits a month or less after their conclusion.

        A 50 score is earned where reports are available to the public more than a month after the conclusion of the investigation or audit.

        A 0 score is earned where reports are not available to the public or they become available after six months or more after conclusion of the investigation or audit. A 0 score is also earned where only summaries of the reports are publicly available.

        Sources

        Interview with Daniel Zuchron, member of Election Oversight Body, July 26 2014 Interview with Willy Masaharu, Editor of Suara Pembaruan Daily, August 10, 2014 Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014

        Submitted audited reports, KPU website. 2014 http://www.kpu.go.id/index.php/pages/detail/2014/267

    • expand button!
      Enforcement Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        47
        Score
        YES
        In law, there are sanctions in response to political finance violations.More about indicator

        Law number 8/2012 on Legislative Elections enumerates some sanctions for political finance violations. For example, Article 280 states: Participants of election who give false information on campaign finance reports shall be punished maximum one year imprisonment and a maximum fine of IDR 12 million.

        Article 296 of the same law also threatens General Election Officials who do not act on recommendations made by The Elections Supervisory Agency regarding the verification of initial financial reports with a maximum jail term of 3 years and IDR 36 million in fine

        The same law threatens anyone who provide money or other materials to induce votes for a particular DPD candidate with maximum 3 years in jail and IDR 36 million (article 297) and 2 years in jail and IDR 24 million to support a DPR candidate (article 301 section 1) during campaign period.

        Anyone providing money in exchange for a vote for particular DPR or DPD candidate could face maximum 4 years in prison and IDR 48 million fine during quiet period (article 301 section 2) or maximum 3 year in prison and IDR 36 million in fine on election day (article 301 section 3).

        Article 303 section 1 of the law defines the maximum jail term for campaign contributors (individual, corporate or organizations) who exceed the contribution limit of 2 years and maximum IDR 5 billion. Section 2 threatens political parties and candidates using, not reporting and not submitting to state coffers the excess contribution with 2 years and maximum IDR 5 billion in fines.

        Campaign participants who use funds from foreign sources, anonymous contributions or state owned enterprises could face a maximum 3 years in jail and a fine of IDR 36 million.

        The Law 2/2011 on Political Parties only threaten political parties which do not report expenses which originate from public funds with formal citation and discontinuing of party assistance funds.

        The same law threatens political parties which receive funding from foreign sources and do not disclose and submit it to state coffers with 2 years in prison and a fine worth twice the amount contributed (article 47 section 4); for anonymous sources and state owned enterprises with 1 year in jail (section 5); political parties owning businesses or shares face confiscation of all assets (section 6).

        For exceeding the allowed campaign contribution, political parties could face a maximum jail term of 1 year and contributors 6 months in jail with a fine worth twice the amount received (article 49).

        Articles 90 and 137 give KPU the authority to cancel the candidacy of parties and candidates that fail to submit the audited financial reports in a timely fashion.

        Further, by Law number 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, Article 221: 1. Campaign organisers who do not record any donation in a special campaign account shall be punished with imprisonment minimum 12 months and maximum 48 months. 2. Campaign organisers who do not record goods and services in financial report shall be punished with imprisonment minimum 12 months and maximum 48 months.

        Article 215 of the law threatens campaign organizers with a minimum of 6 months in jail and IDR 6 million and a maximum of 24 months in jail and IDR 24 million for directly or indirectly providing money or goods anyone to vote for certain presidential candidate.

        Both the receiver and giver of contributions which exceed campaign contribution limits could face a minimum of 6 months jail and IDR 1 billion and a maximum of 24 months and IDR 5 billion (article 220).

        Meanwhile campaign organizers who do not record campaign contributions both cash or goods and services face a minimum of 12 months and a maximum of 48 months as well as a fine worth three times the donation received (article 221).

        The same penalty also goes to election organizers who receive contributions from foreign, anonymous sources or state owned enterprises and fail to report and submit it to state coffers (article 222 section 1). Using the illegal funds warrants a jail term of minimum 6 months and maximum 24 months as well as a fine worth three times the donation received (article 222 section 2).

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the law clearly defines violations of political finance laws, and 2) there are clearly defined sanctions for specific violations.

        A MODERATE score is earned where violations are clearly defined but sanctions for specific violations are not.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, articles 90, 137, 280 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections, article 221 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties http://www.kpu.go.id/dmdocuments/UU%2002%20Tahun%202011.pdf

      • expand button!
        48
        Score
        YES
        In law, the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions.More about indicator

        In law, KPU has the authority to impose sanctions for administrative violations (see Law 8/2012), but cannot initiate any criminal prosecutions. Bawaslu is able to recommend sanctions and prosecutorial action to KPU and the national police, but cannot mandate the imposition of any criminal punishment (Law 15/2011). Indeed, Bawaslu can do nothing if the authorities to whom it makes recommendations decide not to follow its recommendations.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, and 2) it can directly prosecute violators before the courts or is independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, but it can't directly prosecute violators before the courts or is not independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 15/2011 on Election Organizer Article 73 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu152011.pdf

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, articles 90, 137, 280 www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

      • expand button!
        49
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do offenders comply with sanctions imposed?More about indicator

        Because of the weakness of KPU and Bawaslu, vote buying and violations of campaign finance regulations are widely practiced all over Indonesia, and repeat offenders are common. Recommended sanctions are often ignored as well. Violations are particularly prevalent during legislative, gubernatorial, and mayoral elections. No significant offenders are ever successfully punished in criminal courts, in large part because of a lack of firm evidence and willing witnesses. Police and prosecutors, according to sources, often fail to follow up on Bawaslu's recommendations re: prosecution, sometimes because witnesses refuse to testify in court (Listyanti, 2014).

        The big cases related to campaign finance mostly are seized and exposed in the anti-corruption court operated by the Anti Corruption Commission (KPK) a couple years after elections. In 2011, many members of parliament were detained by the KPK for corruption in the election of the Deputy Governor of Indonesia’s Central Bank in 2003. Max Moein, a suspect of that case, testified illicit money was used for Megawati’s campaign in the 2004 election (Suara Merdeka, 2010).

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) offenders comply with the sanctions imposed without exception, and 2) they are not repeat offenders.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) offenders usually comply with the sanctions imposed but exceptions exist, or 2) most are not repeat offenders but some exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) offenders rarely comply with the sanctions imposed, or 2) most are repeat offenders.

        Sources

        Interview with Eka Satya Laksamana, member of Election Oversight Banten Province, August 4, 2014. Interview with Daniel Zuchron, member of National Election Oversight, July 26, 2014. Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014.

        Listyanti, Agita Sukma. 2014. Candidate’s Campaign, Money Politics Detected. Tempo.co, March 25, 2014. http://pemilu.tempo.co/read/news/2014/03/25/269565100/Kampanye-Caleg-Politik-Uang-Mulai-Terendus-, accessed September 2, 2014.

        Suara Merdeka. 2010. Travel Cheque for Megawati’s Campaign. Suara Merdeka, October 6, 2014. http://antikorupsijateng.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/cek-perjalanan-untuk-kampanye-mega/, accessed September 2, 2014.

      • expand button!
        50
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How strong is enforcement, and what impedes more effective enforcement?More about indicator

        Overall, law enforcement in the violation of campaign finance is very weak and only a few insignificant cases are resolved in election courts, such as using state facilities or a few people seized while distributing small amounts of money for vote buying. There are three problems in law enforcement: first, the limited authority of Bawaslu which can only recommend sanctions and prosecution. Second, the limited timespan of the election court, which is 14 days. After 14 days, violations reported by Bawaslu to the police expire and can no longer be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations. Problematically, the statue of limitations on cases forwarded from the police to the prosecutor is only 14 days. If police do not forward cases for prosecution within this 14 day window, the case is automatically dropped. Prosecutors have 3 days to review and return cases to the police if they deem that additional research is necessary. If the case is deemed complete, prosecutors then have only 5 days to bring the case before the Election Court. The First Court has 7 days to carry out a trial, and then 3 days to issue a verdict. Prosecutors and suspects can appeal decisions to the High Court in three days, and the First Court must forward the appeal document to the High Court within 3 days. The High Court must then issue a final verdict within 7 days of receiving the appeal. The time window on these issues is so compressed that it's difficult to ensure that all necessary investigations and prosecutions are in fact carried out. A third issue is that witnesses often refuse to participate in trials because of their close ties to the accused.

        To make law enforcement more effective, fundamental political finance reforms are needed. First, Bawaslu needs the authority to carry out investigations and prosecutions. Second, the statute of limitations must be expanded. Third, more explicit sanctions should be delineated for violations of campaign finance regulations, and these sanctions should be set forth in the law. Fourth, campaign finance laws must cover third party organizations, for as long as these organizations take part in campaigns, they should be subject to regulation. Fifth, regulations must be adjusted to be in accordance with the current open list electoral system. Current legislation was passed when Indonesia had a closed list system, and as a result, candidates are largely exempt from any reporting requirements.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - According to the 8/2012 Law on Legislative Elections managing campaigns for House of Representatives candidates are the sole responsibility of their respective politicial parties (article 129).

        This allows candidates for seats in the House to be free from any responsibility to report campaign contributions and expenditures, and they can thus walk away from any sanctions. This greatly contrasts the requirements for Regional Representatives Council candidates who are responsible for their own campaigns (article 132).

        Meanwhile the Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections stipulates that managing campaigns for presidential and vice presidential candidates falls in the hands of the campaign team.

        The law mandates the creation of a dedicated bank account for campaign purposes which is closely monitored. However the Legislative Election Law as well as the Presidential Elections Law do not bar the creation of multiple accounts or the use of personal party official or individual candidates’ accounts to receive contributions and spend them.

        Allowing multiple accounts to be used for campaign purposes mean candidates can underreport their contributions and spendings making it difficult to monitor and make credible and accurate audits of campaign finances. (Oktaveri. 2014).

        The law also needs to bar cash donations and loans which are difficult to monitor, record, and report.

        Election watchdog, The People's Voter Education Network (JPPR) said that the anti-money laundering agency, the Financial Transactions Report and Analysis Center (PPATK), should be involved in monitoring campaign contributions and spending.

        The Law 8/2010 on Money Laundering mandates all financial institutions (banks, money changers, insurance firms etc.) to report suspicious transactions and those of great amount to the PPATK in real time. If involved, the PPATK can order financial institutions to keep track of bank accounts used for campaign purposes as well as those belonging to individual candidates and their campaign teams.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please provide a general explanation of the effectiveness of enforcement, describing: 1) any conditions that may prevent effective enforcement, and 2) explain what are the most urgent areas of reform in the country's political finance system.

        Sources

        Interview with Abdullah Dahlan, Indonesia Corruption Watch, August 8, 2014. Interview with Eka Satya Laksamana, Member of Election Oversight Body Banten Province, August 4, 2014. Interview with Daniel Zuchron, member of National Election Oversight Body, July 26, 2014

        Anggraini, Titi. (2014). Keadilan Pemilu dan Penegakan Hukum Pemilu yang Berintegritas (Election Justice and Integrity of Election Law Enforcement). In Surbakti, Ramlan.ed. (2014). Buku Panduan Pidana Pemilu (Handbook of Election Criminal act). Jakarta: Kemitraan.

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections, article 261 – 265. www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf (English) https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0dkxr4ieujov7v/IFES-Indonesia-Unofficial-Translation-of-Law-82012-on-Legislative-Elections-v1_2012-06-14.pdf?dl=0

        Reviewer's sources: Law 8/2010 on Money Laundering https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkpk.go.id%2Fgratifikasi%2Fimages%2Fpdf%2FUU_TPPU.pdf&ei=XnRWVNb7A4uVuATe6IDwAQ&usg=AFQjCNG7I-DpeKRsZOvgPdHdoqtVGVT7pA&sig2=kWmuhAkRXQLkOP18kOxnZA&bvm=bv.78677474,d.c2E

        Law 8/2012 on Legislative Elections www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu82012.pdf

        Law 42/2008 on Presidential Elections http://www.bawaslu.go.id/sites/default/files/regulasi/uu422008.pdf

        Law 2/2011 on Political Parties http://aceproject.org/ero-en/regions/asia/ID/indonesia-law-2-2011-on-political-parties-2011/

        Siregar, Karim 2014. Audit-Dana-Parpol-Hanya-Formalitas-JPPR-Minta-Ppatk-Dan-Bawaslu-Ungkap-Dana-Mencurigakan (Party’s Audit a Formality, JPPR Wants PPATK Involved) http://www.gresnews.com/berita/politik/90305-audit-dana-parpol-hanya-formalitas-jprr-minta-ppatk-dan-bawaslu-ungkap-dana-mencurigakan-parpol

        Oktaveri, John. 2014. IAPI: 3 Alasan Dana Partai Politik Sulit Diaudit (IAPI: 3 Reasons Party Funds Difficult to be Audited) http://m.bisnis.com/pemilu/read/20140410/355/218476/iapi-3-alasan-dana-partai-politik-sulit-diaudit

Indonesia has a presidential executive system in which the head of state (the president) is directly elected. Parties or coalitions which hold at least 25% of the seats in parliament, or who enjoy 20% of the popular vote, nominate presidential candidates, who manage their own funds during the electoral campaigns.

In the bicameral legislature, the lower house, known as the House of Representatives (DPR), is elected on the basis of a proportional, open-list party system. Parties nominate several candidates in a given constituency, and candidates receiving the most votes take office. There are 560 members elected from 77 electoral regions. The number of lawmakers vary from one electoral region to the next depending on the population of each region. The decision to divide the electoral regions and determine the number of lawmakers per region is in the hands of the General Elections Commission (KPU). For example, Jakarta, the Indonesian capital and the biggest city in the country is divided into three electoral regions because of its population size with a total number of lawmakers of 21, But the sparsely populated West Papua province only has one electoral region with just 3 lawmakers despite its size. Meanwhile West Java, the biggest province by population is divided into 10 electoral regions with a total of 91 lawmakers. Campaigns are managed and funded largely at the party level.

There are 132 senators at the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), or Senate, representing 33 provinces except the newly established province of North Kalimantan. Each province has four senators that are elected on the basis of being the top four vote recipients in a given province.. individual candidates can run. Candidates manage their own campaign funds.

Legislative elections and presidential elections are held separately. The most recent legislative elections occurred in April 2014, and the most recent presidential elections were held in July 2014.

There are ten parties which have seats in the DPR, passing a threshold of 3.5 percent of national vote at the 2014 legislative election. Two parties which also participated in the same election: the Star Crescent Party (PBB) and the Inodnesian Justice and Unity Party (PKPI) failed to meet the threshold and thus failed to gain seats at the DPR. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) became the winner of the 2014 legislative election securing 109 seats at the DPR while the People’s Conscience Party (Hanura) is the smallest party with 16 seats at the DPR.

During the 2014 presidential election only two pairs of candidates vied for the presidency and vice presidency: Retired General and Gerindra Party chairman Prabowo Subianto who ran alongside former Economics Minister and PAN chairman Hatta Rajasa; and former Jakarta Governor Joko Widodo and his running mate returning Vice President Jusuf Kalla.

Subianto-Rajasa was supported by a seven-party coalition which represented 353 seats in the parliament, while Widodo-Kalla was supported by a five-party coalition representing 207 legislative seats.

Widodo-Kalla won the election by a vote of 53.15 percent (70,997,833) over Subianto-Rajasa with a vote of 46.85 percent (62,576,444).