Learn more

composite
51
51

Russian Federation

In law
71
In practice
45

Russia has a strong political finance regime, and is a good example of a country in which political finance regulations, rather than encouraging a level playing field, actually restrict electoral competition. Direct public funding is awarded to parties in the form of post election reimbursements, in law and in practice, on the basis of electoral performance. Free access to advertising is provided to parties and candidates, but during the 2011 and 2012 elections, slots were distributed so as to privilege the ruling party's campaign. Further, non-financial state resources were frequently deployed by the ruling party for electoral purposes. Contributions are highly restricted, and a cap is in place for electoral spending by both parties and candidates. In practice, however, many violations of these restrictions occurred during recent elections. In law, parties and candidates both are required to report their financial information during campaign periods, but outside the campaign, only parties must file reports. In practice, submitted reports often fail to include all contributions, especially in-kind contributions, and are not fully itemized. Some of the submitted information is published online, and of that, some is in a machine readable format. Third party actors, despite being active in Russian campaigns, are not regulated. The Central Elections Commission (CEC) is in charge of enforcing political finance law. The CEC is highly politicized, and typically focuses its regulatory power on opposition parties. It is largely opaque in its operations. The CEC cannot impose sanctions on parties or candidates found to have violated the law, so it passes along recommendations to other government agencies, including the Ministry of Finance and the General Prosecutor, when pursuing punishments. Violators typically comply with the imposed sanctions. That said, due to the CEC's bias, rules are selectively enforced so as to favor the ruling party, and restrictions on contributions inhibit opposition parties ability to meaningfully contest elections.

  • expand button!

    Direct and Indirect Public Funding

    More about category
    composite
    56
    • 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 law, there is direct public funding for electoral campaigns. According to the Russian legislation (see Art.33 of the Federal law “On political parties”), political parties are entitled to state aid based on election results in order to compensate for the financial costs incurred by them during elections, to a total annual amount of at least 20 RUB ($0.57) multiplied by the number of voters included in voter lists at the preceding elections to the State Duma or presidential elections.

        As explained in a GRECO report from 2012, "Parties have the right to state aid (1) if they received at least 3% of the federal constituency vote during the preceding elections to the State Duma, to the annual amount of 50 RUB ($1.43) multiplied by the number of votes received by the list of candidates nominated by the party; or (2) if they received at least 3% of the vote during the preceding presidential elections, to the non-recurrent amount of 20 RUB ($0.57) multiplied by the number of votes received by the presidential candidate nominated by the party. The extent of state funding is subject to annual indexation taking into account the inflation rate."

        There is no direct public funding for individual candidates during campaigns.

        Direct public funding is available for all national level election types (presidential and legislative; only the lower chamber - the State Duma - of the Federal Assembly is elected; members of the higher chamber are appointed).

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/)

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

      • 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

        In law, there is a transparent and equitable mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns. By Art.33 of the Federal law “On political parties”, political parties are entitled to state aid based on election results in order to compensate for the financial costs incurred by them during elections, to a total annual amount of at least 20 RUB ($0.57) multiplied by the number of voters included in voter lists at the preceding elections to the State Duma or presidential elections.

        Article 33 further specifies that the funds are allocated (1) within three months after the official publication of parliamentary election results and annually in subsequent years during the term of the State Duma; or (2) within one year after the official publication of presidential election results. The state funding constitutes so-called “special purpose receipts”.

        Political parties are entitled to state aid if 1) during the preceding elections to the State Duma, they received at least 3% of the federal constituency vote or if 2) during the preceding presidential elections, they received at least 3% of the vote. In the first instance, parties can receive an annual amount of 50 RUB ($1.43) multiplied by the number of votes received by the candidates nominated by the party. In the second instance, the parties are entitled to a one-off payment of 20 RUB ($0.57) multiplied by the number of votes received by that party's presidential candidate. State funding of political parties is subject to annual indexation, reflecting the inflation rate.

        Following the results of the last legislative and presidential elections, United Russia qualified for almost RUB 2 bln annual direct public funding, the Communist Party of Russian Federation – for over RUB 425 mln, Just Russia political party – for almost RUB 107.5 mln, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia – for almost RUB 253 mln. According to Russian legislation (see Art.34 of the Federal law “On political parties”), all political parties have to provide the Central Election Commission with an annual financial report that has to register all revenues including direct public funding.

        All such reports must specify income and expenses in a specific format and on the basis of forms established in print and in electronic form by the CEC (see Art.34 of the Federal law “On political parties”).

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

        Secondary source: “State Financing of the Political Parties as a Method of the Electoral Targeting”, an article by Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, published in April 2013 at “Humanities, social-economic and social sciences” magazine, available at http://www.online-science.ru/m/products/politicks-nauki/gid415/pg0/.

        "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

      • 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

        The mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns is relatively transparent and consistently applied. The electoral campaign allocations are defined through a clearly defined transparent calculation mechanism and the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        According to Ivan Mel’nikov, the State Duma deputy from Communist Party, the percentage of state funding in the Communist party’s annual budgets amounts to 25% to 50% (see “Golosa izbiratelei vzleteli v tzene”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, October 26, 2012).

        The direct financial support from the state to political parties was unanimously welcomed by the ruling political parties that voted on November 13, 2012 for the 2.5 raise (from RUB 20 to 50/vote) of direct public funding as they saw evident benefits for themselves (see the records of the State Duma session, November 13, 2012).

        Despite the clear eligibility criteria and seemingly consistent application of redistribution based on this criteria, the law is not equitable due to legal and illegal barriers to entry for non-ruling parties. Firstly, redistribution of public resources towards the ruling parties results makes the electoral environment more difficult for opposition parties. The Russian legislation doesn’t take in consideration the results of legislative elections either in constituent territories of the Russian Federation or municipal entities. Political parties that didn’t meet the 3% election threshold at the national level did win a considerable amount of seats at local legislatures. However, they can’t apply for direct public funding even if the voting public gave them its support. (See “State Financing of the Political Parties as a Method of the Electoral Targeting”, an article by Dr Oxana Morozova).

        Of greater concern is the issue of vote-rigging, whereby votes cast for some candidates or parties do not actually represent the actual votes of citizens. Both the recent legislative and presidential campaigns were accompanied by accusations of vote-rigging and falsification in favor of the ruling party (United Russia) and acting president. So extra votes allegedly added to a specific party's vote count generated additional, unwarranted funding from the state. In 2013 opposition parties tried to dispute both the 2011 legislative and 2012 presidential elections on the base of vote-rigging but lost.

        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

        “State Financing of the Political Parties as a Method of the Electoral Targeting”, an article by Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, published in April 2013 at “Humanities, social-economic and social sciences” magazine, available at http://www.online-science.ru/m/products/politicks-nauki/gid415/pg0/

        Records of the State Duma session, November 13, 2012, available at: http://transcript.duma.gov.ru/node/3732/

        Political parties' financial reports, Central Election Commission website: http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty

        Consolidated review by CEC of all political parties financial reports: http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/proverka12.html

        United Russia annual report: http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/SFOEdnRossia.PDF, Communist Party annual report - http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/DOC124.PDF, LIberal Democratic Party annual report - http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/DOC124.PDF, Fair Rossiya annual report - http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/DOC124.PDF.

        “Tsement edinorossov”, an article by Nataliya Kostenko and Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, June 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1847916/cement_edinorossov

        “Golosa izbiratelei vzleteli v tzene”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, October 26, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2052797

        “Otchet pustykh koshelkov”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta daily, November 12, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/11/10/partii-site.html

        “Chestnye dengi”, editorial at Rossiiskaya gazeta daily, February 01, 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/02/01/cik.html

        “Zoloto partii”, an article by Sergei Toporkov, Rossiiskaya gazeta daily, May 13, 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/05/08/partii-site.html

        “Politika – delo dorogoe”, an article by Sergei Toporkov, Rossiiskaya gazeta daily, June 5, 2013, available at http://www.rg.ru/2013/06/05/partii.html

        Reports of vote rigging that may have affected the equitable allocation of public funds: "Iski s Bolotnoi", an article by Anastasiua Kornya, Vedomosti daily, Dcember 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1452304/iskisbolotnoj;

        “Otkrepitelnoe pravo”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, March 05, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/library/news/1524585/otkrepitelnoe_pravo;

        “Elections Chief Admits Astrakhan Violations”, an article by Jonathan Earle, the Moscow Times daily, 23 April 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-chief-admits-astrakhan-violations/457249.html;

        “Prokhorova pobeda”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, August 30, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/3404631/prohorova_pobeda;

        “Popytki osporit itogi proshlogodnikh vyborov v Gosdumu provalilis’”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Mariya Zheleznova, Vedomosti daily, December 24, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/7485451/izbiratelnepoterpevshij

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        Ruben Enikolopova, Vasily Korovkina, Maria Petrovaa, Konstantin Sonina, and Alexei Zakharovb, "Field experiment estimate of electoral fraud in Russian parliamentary elections" http://www.pnas.org/content/110/2/448.full.pdf+html.

        Dmitry Kobak, Sergey Shpilkin, Maxim S. Pshenichnikov, "Statistical anomalies in 2011-2012 Russian elections revealed by 2D correlation analysis", http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0741

        Frye, Timothy and Reuter, Ora John and Szakonyi, David, "Political Machines at Work: Voter Mobilization and Electoral Subversion in the Workplace" (2012). APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2110201

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        4
        Score
        25
        In practice, to what extent does the entity in charge of public funding make disbursement information publicly available?More about indicator

        In practice, the entity in charge of public funding doesn’t make disbursement information publicly available.

        The Central Election Commission is responsible for election campaigns in Russia. In particular, it summed the results of legislative and presidential elections of 2011-2012 and issued Resolution 70/576-6 dated December 9, 2011 “On results of election of State Duma deputies of the sixth calling”. However, besides publishing financial reports of political parties that contain information of direct public funding made available to these parties by the state, it doesn’t provide any other related information. Financial reports are provided by the political parties annually and uploaded to the CEC websites after they are audited by the CEC officials.

        There is some data on the funds the political parties were allocated by the federal budget but no specifics were given – there is only a total sum of the funds allocated by the state, no details, no explanation.

        There is no such information of the Ministry of Finance of Russia website either. Political parties do not make this information public via their websites.

        The requests for information were sent to Central Election Commission, Ministry of Finance of Russian Federation, United Russia, Just Russia, Communist Party and LIberal Democratic Party on August 01, 2014. Within one month, according to Russian legislation, such requests should be answered.

        The CEC replied in less that two weeks and provided an offical response that contained a direct link to the web page with requested information. This link didn't contain any additional information.

        The Ministry of Finance replied in three weeks and provided an official response saying the Ministry is not responsible for this field of work and recommending to search for the requested information at CEC website. By September 3, no political party provided any answer at all.

        According to experts, neither political parties, no CEC are interested in making data on direct public funding as transparent as possible because it would be embarassing to explain to citizen why billions of rubles go to political parties while social programs are being cut.

        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

        United Russia annual report: http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/SFOEdnRossia.PDF, Communist Party annual report - http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/DOC124.PDF, LIberal Democratic Party annual report - http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/DOC124.PDF, Just Russia annual report - http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/DOC124.PDF.

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

    • 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

        In law, use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates is prohibited.

        Abusing public office in elections is forbidden (Art.40 of the Federal Law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation”). This prohibition applies to candidates, registered candidates, other persons who occupy state or elected municipal posts, who are public officials, state or municipal servants, members of management boards of organizations regardless of the form of ownership, journalists, and creative employees of mass media organizations. Abusing public office entails, in particular, engaging persons who are subordinate to or otherwise dependent on a candidate, using premises occupied by state bodies or bodies of local self-government, using telephone, fax and other means of telecommunication, information services, office equipment of state and municipal bodies and institutions, using state or municipal transportation free of charge or at low cost, in order to promote a candidate or a list of candidates. The law applies to political parties and individual candidates.

        Additionally, Federal Law "On political parties" (Art. 30) explicitly prohibits donations from state government bodies (federal or local) and legal entities with participation of the Russian state/a federal subject/ or Russian municipality which exceeds 30%, organizations set up by federal or local government.

        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

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

      • 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

        In practice, state resources were actively used in favor of and against political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns in the most recent elections.

        The misuse of state resources is a primary feature of the recent Russian electoral campaigns. Much more than just financial resources, administrative resources were successfully used in legislative and presidential elections 2011-2012, essentially circumventing the basic rules outlined for campaign finance. Specifically, parties and candidates used government resources to either fund or facilitate their campaigns, coerce government employees to undertake campaign work, and pressure government organizations to mobilize their support base.

        The recent federal electoral campaign in Russia has demonstrated plenty of incidents of such use of administrative resources at the federal and local levels.

        For example, the Moscow region Governor, Boris Gromov, who headed United Russia's regional list for the Duma 2011 elections, ordered local mayors to ensure "the party's unconditional victory," Gennady Gudkov, a senior Duma deputy with A Just Russia, said in an interview published on October 24, 2011 in Kommersant daily.

        In aother example, Moscow schoolteachers were ordered to attend a rally supporting the then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that was planned for the same day as an opposition march, Gazeta.ru information portal reported on January 31, 2012.

        In a final example, dated Oct. 24, 2011 and available on YouTube, Denis Agashin, city manager for the Republic of Udmurtiya capital, Izhevsk, explicitly tells veterans' organizations that their funding will depend on how their municipal districts vote in the State Duma elections in December 2011, according to the report by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily. He was later fined RUB 2000 ($ 57) for that.

        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

        Recent federal electoral campaign in Russia has demonstrated plenty of incidents of use of administrative resource on federal and local level.

        The Russian media actively covered these incidents in 2011-2012. For example: “Opposition Party Denied Duma Run”, an article by Alexandra Odynova, the Moscow Times daily, 23 June 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/opposition-party-denied-duma-run/439356.html

        “United Russia Purged Ads, Prokhorov Says”, an article by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily, 10 August 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-purged-ads-prokhorov-says/441815.html

        “Sverdlovskim ministram razdali predvybornye zadaniya”, an article by Mariya Plyusnina, Kommersant daily, September 20, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1777092

        “Governor Accused of Interfering With Duma Vote”, an article byNatalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 25 October 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-official-buys-votes/446792.html

        “Yabloko vyshlo na lidiruyushie positsii”, editorial, Kommersant daily, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1807179

        “United Russia Official Buys Votes”, an article by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily, 01 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-official-buys-votes/446792.html

        “Chistota urn”, editorial, Vedomosti daily, November 01, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/1408619/chistota_urny

        “Shkol’naya partiya”, an article by Irina Novikova, Elena Mangileva and Anastasiya Grineva, Vedomosti daily, November 01, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1408622/shkolnaya_partiya

        “Edinuyu Rossiyu lovyat na byudzhetnikhah”, an article by Vsevolod Inyutin, Ruslan Nuriev and Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, November 7, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1810518

        “Voronezh Officials 'Pressured' to Vote”, an article by Alexey Eremenko and Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 08 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/voronezh-officials-pressured-to-vote/447270.html

        “Clergy Requested to Help United Russia”, an article by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily, 21 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/clergy-requested-to-help-united-russia/448189.html

        “Prosrym ludyam vse ravno za kogo golosovat”, an article by Tatiyana Drogaeva, Kommersant daily, November 21, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1820914

        “Report: United Russia in Vote Grab”, an article by Alexey Eremenko, the Moscow Times daily, 24 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/report-united-russia-in-vote-grab/448517.html

        “Electoral Mutiny in TV Ad Ban”, an article by Alexey Eremenko, the Moscow Times daily, 29 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/electoral-mutiny-in-tv-ad-ban/448802.html

        “Pobeditelei ne sudyat”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, November 30, 2011, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/49750.html

        “Takuyu partiytu nado snimat’ s vyborov”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, November 30, 2011, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/49753.html

        “Partii obmenyalis’ narusheniyami”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Nataliya Korchenkova, Vsevolod Inyutin, Kommersant daily, December 01, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1827973

        “Zakrepitelnoe udostoverenie”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, December 12, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1441149/zakrepitelnoe_udostoverenie

        “Urals Polling Station Kicks Out MT Reporter”, an article by Alexandra Odynova, the Moscow Times daily, December 5, 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/urals-polling-station-kicks-out-mt-reporter/449184.html

        “Slovo predsedatelya komissii – zakon”, Kompromat.ru information portal, December 26, 2011, available at http://www.compromat.ru/page_31609.htm

        “Izbiratelei podvergli ugovoram”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, December 29, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1847536

        “95 People Punished Over 3,000 Parliamentary Vote Violations”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, January 19, 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/95-people-punished-over-3000-parliamentary-vote-violations/451262.html

        “Dlya pedagogov vvodyat otkrepitelnoe pravo”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, January 27, 2012, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/50676.html

        “Golos Calls Putin a Main Electoral Violator”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/golos-calls-putin-a-main-electoral-violator/452034.html

        “Teachers Told to Attend Pro-Putin Rally on Feb. 4”, an article by Ezekiel Pfeifer, the Moscow Times daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/teachers-told-to-attend-pro-putin-rally-on-feb-4/452020.html

        “Ministry Branch 'Advised' Journalists on Putin Rally”, an article by Jonathan Earle, the Moscow Times daily, 01 February 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/ministry-branch-advised-journalists-on-putin-rally/452097.html

        “Chaika ne stal ob’yasnyat’sya, soslavshis’ na tainu”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/50742.html

        “Uchitelnitsa is Peterburga rasskazala kak byla chestnym glavoi izbirkoma”, an article at News.Ru information portal, February 03, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/03feb2012/teacher.html

        “Directora shkoly otchislili za povedenie”, an article at Kommersant daily, February 7, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1867642

        “Otkrepitelnoe pravo”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, March 05, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/library/news/1524585/otkrepitelnoe_pravo

        “Nablyudenei vplot do udaleniya”, editorial, Kommersant daily, March 5, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1886853

        “1000 rublei za moroz i Putina”, an article by Maxim Glikin and Roman Shshov, Vedomosti daily, February 02, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1491713/1000rubzamorozi_putina

        “Elections Chief Admits Astrakhan Violations”, an article by Jonathan Earle, the Moscow Times daily, 23 April 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-chief-admits-astrakhan-violations/457249.html

        http://www.vedomosti.ru/newspaper/article/273538/suchastkamenya_vykinuli “Mera Birobidzhana Sergeya Parkhomenko oshtrafovali iz-za agitatsii za Putina”, an article at NewsRu information website, posted on May 12, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/12may2012/parhom.html

        Golos Association website, data on violations at Presidential 2012 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2012-03-04

        Golos Association website, data on violations at State Duma 2011 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2011-12-04

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • 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

        According to Russian legislation, political parties and individual candidates have free or subsidized access to equitable air time on state-owned radio and TV channels for electoral campaigns.

        The Federal Law “On Political Parties” (para. 1 of Art. 32) "obliges federal and regional state bodies, as well as organs of local self-government, to afford equal support to political parties by assuring equal access by parties to public media (state or municipal television, radio and press), for free or for a fee, and to premises and communications equipment on equal footing and on the same terms as for other public users. During elections, as a general rule, free airtime and free printing space is not provided to an electoral association which received less than 3% of the vote in preceding election" (see Art. 44-45 and para. 1.1 of Art. 50 of the Federal Law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation”). (GRECO 2012 Report)

        "Free airtime and free printing space are not provided to a political party (or its successor) (1) whose federal list of candidates received less than 3% of the vote in preceding election to the State Duma and was not admitted to the distribution of seats (see para. 2 of Art. 57 of the Federal Law “On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”); or (2) whose candidate received less than 2% of the vote in preceding presidential election" (see para. 2.1 of Art.51 of the Federal Law “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”). (GRECO 2012 Report)

        In addition, pursuant to the Federal Law “On guarantees of equality of parliamentary parties in the coverage of their activities by publicly accessible state TV and radio channels”, "the parties enjoy equal coverage by the aforementioned media. Monitoring compliance with the law is entrusted to the Central Election Commission and carried out in consultation with parliamentary parties, the Public Chamber and the Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communication." (GRECO 2012 Report)

        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

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        Federal law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

        Federal Law No. 95-FZ “On guarantees of equality of parliamentary parties in the coverage of their activities by publicly accessible state TV and radio channels” passed on May 12, 2009 (available at http://base.garant.ru/195519/)

        Secondary source; "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.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

        In practice, free or subsidized access to air time for campaign advertising was provided in a sufficiently transparent, equitable way to political parties and individual candidates for electoral campaigns during the latest 2011 legislative and 2012 presidential elections in Russia.

        Air time is designated by draw procedure. Each party gets a chance either to draw randomly a ball with a certain number or a blank envelope containing an air slot and a contract with a broadcasting company. In the most recent federal elections, each party and individual candidate were assigned an equal amount of air time for commercials, first-person monologues and debates on state-owned TV channels Rossiya-1, Rossiya-24, Channel One and TV Center-Moscow. Additional time could be purchased for subsidized rates.

        A major problem with allocation of air time on broadcast media had to do with the way it was distributed. Even though all parties and individual candidates were assigned an equal amount of time, OSCE observers noted that non-United Russia legislative candidates and presidential candidates (excepting Vladimir Putin) were allotted slots outside of peak audience hours, severely limiting their ability to reach voters (though, as described above, campaign advertising slots were allocated using a different mechanism). Despite this, few complaints were filed with the CEC or regional electoral commissions during the duration of the presidential campaign, largely due to the belief that the complaints would not be redressed. The majority of the complaints that were filed, according to the OSCE, dealt with the abuse of equitable access of candidates to media.

        Another concern is the use of state media (largely the leading state and private TV channels) for unlimited coverage of public officials such as Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev who (Medvedev was the leader of United Russia political party and Putin – a candidate for President) were portrayed in their official capacity. During election campaign both were traveling all over the country with working visits and TV spent an unreasonable amount of time demonstrating them. For example, in January 2012 state-controlled TV outlets Channel One, NTV and Rossiya-1 covered the presidential candidates for a total of 55 hours, with Putin gaining almost three times as much coverage as any other single candidate, according to data from website Telemarker.ru. The channels showed Putin for a little over 23 hours in total, while each other candidate received about eight hours of coverage.

        Complaints from other contenders were brushed off by the Interior Ministry, the Investigative Committee and Central Election Commission as insignificant.

        At the same time, news reports on opposition parties and candidates were harsh and discriminating. Special programs were dedicated to Golos election monitoring CSO that portrayed it as a foreign agent whose activities were inspired and paid for by international organizations and foreign countries.

        According to experts, there is not enough free prime time for all parties and candidates so the media quite often uses the electoral campaigns as the time to make extra money by selling additional air time. This situation is to the advantage of parties and candidates with a larger purse.

        Though quite often political parties and individual candidates that are connected with the ruling elite do not need extra air time as the media cover their activities for free, stressed the experts.

        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

        “Pretenzii – cherez sud”, an article by Vitali Petrov, Rossiskaya Gazeta daily, May 26, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/05/26/pretenzii.html

        “Sverdlovskim ministram razdali predvybornye zadaniya”, an article by Mariya Plyusnina, Kommersant daily, September 20, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1777092

        “Vremya sobirat’ praimy”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiskaya Gazeta daily, November 01, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/31/efir-site.html

        “Zhalobnaya imitatsiya”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, November 17, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1423894/zhalobnaya_imitaciya

        “Churov reshil sam”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, November 28, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1436303/churovreshilsam

        “Electoral Mutiny in TV Ad Ban”, an article by Alexey Eremenko, the Moscow Times daily, 29 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/electoral-mutiny-in-tv-ad-ban/448802.html

        “Tsenzura – delo dobrovolnoe”, an article Ekaterina Vinokurova, Gazeta information portal, December 02, 2011, available at http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/elections2011/2011/11/28a3850322.shtml

        “Probe Finds Violations But Little Vote-Rigging”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 22 December 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/probe-finds-violations-but-little-vote-rigging/450289.html

        “Vladimira Putina trebuyu otpravit’ v otpusk”, an article by Alezander Zhuravlev, Kommersant daily, January 11, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1848837

        “Stat’i Vladimira Putina sverili s bukvoi zakona”, an article by Nataliya Korchenkova, Kommersant daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1861920

        “Elections Commission Says Putin Articles Were Informational, Not Campaigning”, editorial, the Moscow Times daily, 01 February 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-commission-says-putin-articles-were-informational-not-campaigning/452066.html

        “Presidential Candidates to Be Given Equal, Free TV Time”, editorial, the Moscow Times daily, 03 February 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/presidential-candidates-to-be-given-equal-free-tv-time/452239.html

        “Spravedlivoi Rossii ne dodali efira”, an article by Sergei Goryashko, Kommersant daily, August 15, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2001993

        Golos Assotiation website, data on access to air time violations at Presidential 2012 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2012-03-04/s/2259360849

        Golos Assotiation website, data on access to air time violations at State Duma 2011 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2011-12-04/s/2259360849

        Central Election Commission website, data on air time to political parties at legislative election 2011, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/duma_2011/info/index.html

        Central Election Commission website, data on air time to individual candidates at presidential election 2012, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident_2012/info/index.html

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "RUSSIAN FEDERATION ELECTIONS TO THE STATE DUMA. 4 December 2011. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report". 12 January 2012. http://www.osce.org/odihr/86959?download=true

        "International Elections Observation. Russian Federation, Presidential Election – 4 March 2012. STATEMENT OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS" 5 March 2012. http://www.osce.org/odihr/88667?download=true.

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

  • expand button!

    Contribution and Expenditure Restrictions

    More about category
    composite
    87
    • expand button!
      General Rules on Electoral Campaign Contributions
      More about category
      • expand button!
        9
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, cash contributions are banned.More about indicator

        According to the Russian legislation, cash contributions (nalichnye) are not banned specifically but must be made via the banking system. This framework covers both legislative and presidential elections. See Federal law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002, Art. 2, 7 and 8.

        Citizens can make annual cash donations to a political party or its regional branches without having to use the banking system if the amount does not exceed 4 330 RUB (appr. $124). In such instances, donors must provide detailed information in a receipt voucher (first name, last name and patronymic, date of birth, residence, passport number and citizenship).

        Political parties and their regional branches are allowed to accept donations from citizens and corporations provided these donations have documentary support and the source of these donations is indicated (meaning, no anonymous donations are accepted). See Art.30 of the Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001.

        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

        Federal Law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002, Art. 2, 7 and 8 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/).

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

        Explanation by Central Election Commission, http://www.cikrf.ru/news/relevant/2011/10/06/fin.html

        A letter from Central Bank of Russia #146 dated Oct.24, 2012 with explanations of what information should be provided on a banking form when making a donation to a political party or electoral fund, see http://www.consultant.ru/law/hotdocs/21703.html/?utmcampaign=hotdocsday4&utmsource=ya.direct&utmmedium=cpc&utm_content=114773047

        An example of a banking donation form is available here http://www.soyuztruda.ru/donation/

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

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

        According to the Russian legislation, anonymous donations to political parties and individual candidates are prohibited. See Federal law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002, Art. 2, 7 and 8.

        The law stipulates that transferring money through the banking system as a donation to a political party or electoral fund, a citizen must indicate his/her full name (first name, last name and patronymic), dare of birth, residence, passport number and citizenship on a bank form.

        For a corporation donation, the following information must be included: taxpayer ID, the full name, date of registration, bank details, and an avowal that this specific corporation is not prohibited to donate according to the Art. 6 of Federal law #67. The list of prohibited donors includes:

        1) foreign states and foreign organizations; 2) foreign citizens; 3) persons without citizenship; 4) the citizens of the Russian Federation who have not reached age of 18 years at date of voting; 5) Russian legal bodies with foreign participation if the share (contribution) of foreign participation which exceeds 30 percent at date of official publication (publication) of the decision on appointment of presidential elections of the Russian Federation (for open joint-stock companies - at date of drawing up of the list of the persons, having the right to participate in annual general meeting of shareholders for the last fiscal year); 6) international organizations and international social movements; 7) public authorities, other state structures and local governments; 8) state and municipal authorities; state and municipal unitary enterprises; 11) military units, military establishments and organizations, law enforcement bodies; 12) charitable and religious organizations and also the organizations founded by them; 13) anonymous sources; 14) the legal bodies registered less than one year before the voting day.

        The same restrictions are included in the Art.30 of the Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 as well as in Art. 58 of Federal Law "On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation" and Art. 66 of Federal Law "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma".

        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

        Federal Law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002, Art. 2, 7 and 8.

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001.

        A letter from Central Bank of Russia #146 dated Oct.24, 2012 with explanations of what information should be provided on a banking form when making a donation to a political party or electoral fund, see http://www.consultant.ru/law/hotdocs/21703.html/?utmcampaign=hotdocsday4&utmsource=ya.direct&utmmedium=cpc&utm_content=114773047

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        Federal Law "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified 22 February 2014. http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_159349/?frame=9

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

        According to Russian legislation, in-kind donations are considered under the same rules as donations, which are considered to be a voluntary contribution in form of monetary resources or other property. They must be reported the same way as financial (monetary) donations.

        In the case of a non-monetary donation, the party concerned or its regional branch has to assess its monetary value in accordance with the law and record it in its financial statements. The current market value of in-kind property must be calculated using existing market prices and the information regarding the donation's current value must be independently confirmed or documented, as described in federal law "On valuation activity".

        Political parties and their regional branches are allowed to accept donations from citizens and corporations provided these donations have documentary support and the source of these donations is indicated (see Art.30 of the Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001.

        However, the Russian legislation includes so-called sponsorship when a citizen can provide voluntary, free and personal service to a political party or electoral fund (see Art.5 of Federal law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002) that can hide some kind of in-kind donation. For example, instead of printing election leaflets for money paid from an election fund, a citizen donates them for free. Most likely, this scheme is used when a limit on financial contributions should not be exceeded.

        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

        Federal Law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002, Art. 2, 7 and 8 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/).

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

        Federal Law #135 "On valuation activity", ratified 17 July 1998. http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_163974/

      • expand button!
        12
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, loans to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        According to Russian legislation, only political parties must explicitly report loans made to their electoral campaigns to the CEC. Presidential candidates do not explicitly report campaign loans to the CEC.

        According to Art.29 of Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001, political parties are allowed to attract various sources of election funding, including revenues from civil transactions, as well as other – not prohibited by law - income. This includes loans. Such loans should be duly reported to Central Election Commission according to Central Election Commission resolution #153/1025-4 “On forms of a political party consolidated financial statement and information on flow of funds and expenditure of a political party”, passed on September 29, 2005.

        According to the Art. 58 of to the Presidential Election Law, election funds of candidates can be formed only at the expense of following resources:

        1) own means of the candidate which can't exceed 10 percent from the limiting sum of all expenses from means of the fund of the candidate, established according to this Federal law and for candidates on whom repeated voting is appointed, - 15 percent; 2) means which are allocated to the candidate by the political party which has put him forward and which can't exceed 50 percent from the limiting sum of all expenses from means of elective fund of the candidate, established according to this Federal law; 3) donations of citizens and legal bodies in the size which is not exceeding accordingly 1,5 percent and 7 percent from the limiting sum of all expenses from means of fund of the candidate, established according to the present Federal law, for each citizen, the legal body. (see para. 5 of Art.58 of Federal law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002).

        While presidential candidates have to present the CEC with preliminary and final financial accounts of their campaign contributions and expenditures, as outlined in Art. 62 of the Presidential Election Law, they do not have to explicitly report loans made to the campaign (although technically loans may form part of the candidate's party funding, this will not be reported in the financial accounts).

        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

        Federal Law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002, Art. 2, 7 and 8 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/).

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

        Federal Law on Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation, passed on December 24, 2002 (available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=108639;fld=134;dst=4294967295;from=70288-0)

        Central Election Commission resolution #153/1025-4 “On forms of a political party consolidated financial statement and information on flow of funds and expenditure of a political party”, passed on September 29, 2005, available at http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_137159/.

        Secondary sources: “Belyi dom chistit partiinye kassy”, an article by Sofiya Samokhina, Sergei Goryashko, Kommersant daily, November 8, 2013, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2338035

        “Partii nachnut zhit’ v kredit”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, November 8, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/18493941/partii-nachnut-zhit-v-kredit

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

        Campaign contributions from individuals to candidates and political parties are subject to quantitative restrictions.

        According to Art. 71 of Federal Law "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified in February 2014, donations from individuals must not exceed 0.07% of the total expenditures limit of the party which nominated the candidate (this limit was previously described in Art. 64 of Federal Law "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified in 2005 and has since been superseded by the above law).

        The limit on individual donations to presidential candidates is prescribed by Art. 58 of the Federal Law “On Elections of the President of the RF”. For a candidate, each individual donation should not exceed 1.5 percent of the total expenditures limit (equal to Rub 6 million or US$171430). The presidential candidate him/herself may not contribute more than 10% of the overall expenditures.

        These limits apply to the electoral campaign period.

        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

        Federal Law on Election of Deputies of the State Duma, 2005, available at http://www.rg.ru/2005/05/24/vybory-doc.html

        Federal Law "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified 22 February 2014. http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_159349/?frame=9

        Federal Law on Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation, passed on December 24, 2002 (available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=108639;fld=134;dst=4294967295;from=70288-0)

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

        Federal Law #7 “On Amendments to Legislation on Referendums of Russian Federation”, passed on December 30, 2006, available at http://www.rg.ru/2007/01/10/referendum-dok.html

        Central Election Commission resolution #10/87-6 “On instruction on the order of generation and expenditure of financial resources of political parties’ electoral funds”, passed on May 12, 2011, available at http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_114637/?frame=1#p38.

        Explanation by Central Election Commission, http://www.cikrf.ru/news/relevant/2011/10/06/fin.html

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

        The size of voluntary donations to political party campaign funds is limited to 3.5 percent of the total expenditures limit for legal persons (see Art. 71 of Federal Law 20-FZ "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified on 22 February 2014. This information was previously outlined in Art. 64 of the Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, which has now been superseded by the 2014 law).

        The limit on corporate donations to individual presidential candidates is prescribed by Art. 58 of the Federal Law "On Elections of the President of the Russian Federation”. For a candidate, each individual donation from a legal person should not exceed 7 percent of the total expenditures limit. These limits apply to the electoral campaign period.

        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

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified 22 February 2014. http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_159349/?frame=9

        Federal Law on Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation, passed on December 24, 2002 (available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=108639;fld=134;dst=4294967295;from=70288-0)

        Central Election Commission resolution #10/87-6 “On Instruction on the Order of generation and expenditure of financial resources of political parties’ electoral funds”, passed on May 12, 2011, available at http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_114637/?frame=1#p38

        Explanation by Central Election Commission, http://www.cikrf.ru/news/relevant/2011/10/06/fin.html

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

        According to Art. 6 of Federal Law 67, donations from foreign sources are prohibited. The law states that certain sources are not legal sources of contributions, among them foreign states and foreign organizations. The law covers both legislative and presidential elections.

        This prohibition is also included in the laws on political parties and presidential elections. Art. 30 of the federal law "On political parties" prohibits donations from foreign governments, legal entities, individuals, and legal entities with foreign participation exceeding 30%. Article 58 of the federal law "On the presidential elections in the Russian Federation" prohibits contributions from foreign governments, legal entities, individuals, and legal entities with foreign participation exceeding 30%.

        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

        Federal law #67 “On Main Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Russian Citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002, Art. 2, 6, 7 and 8 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/).

        Federal Law on Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation, passed on December 24, 2002 (available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=108639;fld=134;dst=4294967295;from=70288-0)

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

      • 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

        According to the Russian legislation, contributions from third-party actors are limited. They may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law

        The size of voluntary donations to political party campaign funds is limited to 3.5 percent of the total expenditures limit for legal entities (see Art. 71 of Federal Law 20-FZ "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified on 22 February 2014. This information was previously outlined in Art. 64 of the Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, which has now been superseded by the 2014 law).

        The limit on corporate donations to individual political candidates is prescribed by Art. 58 of the Federal Law «On Elections of the President of the Russian Federation” . For a candidate, each individual donation should not exceed 7 percent of the total expenditures limit.

        These limits apply to electoral campaign periods.

        According to the law on political parties, a party's budget may come from the following sources: membership dues, federal funding, donations, fund-raising events organized by the party itself, revenues from civil law transactions and other sources not prohibited by law.

        The law allows a party to receive donations from legal entities. The law forbids parties to accept donations from foreign governments or foreign citizens; Russia-based companies which are over 30 percent foreign-owned or state-owned; international non-governmental organizations (NGOs); federal, regional or local government bodies; charities or religious organizations; anonymous donors; or legal entities registered less than a year before donating. However, parties are allowed, under cetain conditions, to accept money from Russian NGOs, which are permitted by law to use money donated by foreign citizens, international and foreign organizations, state agencies and municipal bodies.

        In December 2010, the law on political parties (specifically, Art. 30) was amended and NGOs became eligible to donate but only if, a year prior to the donation they were not in receipt of funding from foreign states and foreign organizations; foreign citizens; persons without citizenship; the citizens of the Russian Federation who have not reached age of 18 years at date of voting; international organizations and international social movements; state government and bodies of the federal subjects and of local governments; state and municipal authorities, state and municipal unitary enterprises; military units, military establishments and organizations, law enforcement bodies; charitable and religious organizations and also the organizations founded by them; anonymous sources; the legal bodies registered less than one year before the voting day. Additionally, NGOs can’t make donations if they accepted funding from Russian legal bodies with foreign participation if the share (contribution) of foreign participation which exceeds 30 percent at date of official publication of the decision on appointment of national elections of the Russian Federation (for open joint-stock companies - at date of drawing up of the list of the persons, having the right to participate in annual general meeting of shareholders for the last fiscal year); legal bodies with Russian state or local government participation if the share (contribution) of Russian state or local government participation which exceeds 30 percent at date of official publication of the decision on appointment of national elections of the Russian Federation; legal bodies, established by Russian state or local government bodies; legal bodies, established by Russian or foreign legal bodies with foreign, Russian state or local government participation which exceeds 30 percent.

        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

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        Federal Law "On Election of Deputies of the State Duma", ratified 22 February 2014. http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_159349/?frame=9

        Central Election Commission resolution #10/87-6 “On instruction on the order of generation and expenditure of financial resources of political parties’ electoral funds”, passed on May 12, 2011, available at http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/55071396/

      • expand button!
        17
        Score
        YES
        In law, election campaign spending by political parties and individual candidates is limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        According to the Russian legislation, election campaign spending by political parties and individual candidates is limited to a maximum amount.

        For legislative elections (Federal Law on Elections of Deputies of the State Duma, Article 64, para. 4), the limit for total expenditures from the election fund of a political party is 700 million RUB (US$20 million). It does not include expenditures from the election funds of regional party branches which are limited to amounts ranging from 15 million to 55 million RUB (or $428 571 to 1 571 429, depending on the number of voters registered on the corresponding territory).

        The Law on Presidential Elections (Art. 58 and 61) sets the maximum limit of all expenditure from the electoral fund of a candidate for 400 million RUB or $11 428 570 (500 million RUB in the second round [$13 830 000]).

        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

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

      • 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

        National laws are applicable to sub-national campaigns.

        The federal law “On political parties” (para. 2 of Art. 3) states that a political party has to include at least 40 000 members. A political party to be registered by Ministry of Justice has to include regional branches: a branch of at least 400 members in more than half of regions of Russia (federal subjects), and a branch of at least 150 members in all other regions.

        As summarized in a 2012 report by GRECO, beginning on page 7, a number of national election laws specifically regulate the financing of election campaigns. Art. 57-59 of the Federal law #67 “On main guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of Russian citizens” contain basic rules which apply to all types of elections.

        In elections for the State Duma, “regional party branches may form electoral funds subject to a decision by the leading party body, if the federal list of candidates contains a regional group of candidates corresponding to the given federal subject or to a part of its territory” (see para. 1 of Art. 64 of the Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”) (GRECO 2012, pg 7).

        According to the federal law “On political parties” (Art. 30), the total amount of annual donations received by a political party and its regional branches must not exceed 4 330 000 000 RUB (approx. $12 371 000), with the sum of annual donations received by one regional branch not exceeding 86 600 000 RUB (approx. $2 457 143). If donation was made not in monetary form, the party or its regional branch has to provide its value in rubles according to the law and record it in its financial statements (GRECO 2012, pg 11).

        As noted by GRECO, "The specific election laws set different quantitative limits on expenditure of electoral subjects from their electoral funds. In the case of elections to the State Duma, the maximum limit of all expenditure from the electoral fund of a political party must not exceed 700 000 000 RUB (approx. $20 000 000) (para.3 of Art. 64 of the Federal Law #51 “On election of deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”). This sum does not include the expenditure from the electoral funds of regional party branches which are limited to amounts ranging from 15 000 000 to 55 000 000 RUB (approx. $428 571 to 1 571 429), “depending on the number of voters registered on the corresponding territory” (para.5-6 of Art. 64 of the Federal Law #51 “On election of deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”). In the case of presidential elections, the maximum limit of all expenditure from the electoral fund of a candidate must not exceed 400 000 000 RUB (approx. $11 428 571). The authorities interviewed by GRECO team “indicate that similar rules (i.e. different quantitative limits) apply to elections to state bodies in the federal subjects and to local elections" (GRECO 2012, pg 13).

        Interview sources report that they're unaware of any glaring gaps in the regulatory framework vis a vis national and sub-national legislation.

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On political parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/)

        Federal law #67 “On main guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of Russian citizens”, passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

        Federal Law #51 “On election of deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        CEC’s Resolutions of 12 May 2011 #. 10/85-6 “On the procedure for opening, maintenance and closure of special election accounts for generating electoral funds of political parties and of their regional branches in election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/inv/postancik/Zp11085.jsp

        CEC’s Resolutions of 12 May 2011 #. 10/86-6 “On the procedure for opening, maintenance and closure of special election accounts for generating electoral funds of candidates in election of the President of the Russian Federation”, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/law/decreeofcec/2011/05/12/Zp11086.html

        “Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation Transparency of Party Funding”, adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch, on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch, on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

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

        According to official financial data submitted by political parties to the Central Election Commission, the majority of political party funding came from legal entities and the party’s own funds. The total funding was approximately RUB 1,697,000,000. Of that total, approximately RUB 904,000,000 came from legal bodies, RUB 747,000,000 came from party own funds (largely from its regional branches; the reports do not specify how much exactly in each case), and about RUB 25,000,000 from private donations (though only for the Communist Party and Spravedlivaya).

        According to the final financial report of United Russia political party, out of RUB 615,000,000 donations it received for the State Duma 2011 campaign, RUB 350,000,000 came from the party itself and its regional bodies and RUB 265,100,000 - from legal entities. According to the final financial report of Just Russia political party, out of over RUB 319,000,000 donations it received for the State Duma 2011 campaign, over RUB 179,000,000 came from legal bodies and over RUB 134,000,000 – from the party itself and its regional bodies. According to the final financial report of LIberal Democratic Party political party, out of almost RUB 520,000,000 donations it received for the State Duma 2011 campaign, RUB 343,000,000 came from legal bodies and almost RUB 177,000,000 – from the party itself and its regional bodies. According to the final financial report of Communist Party political party, out of over RUB 222,000,000 donations it received for the State Duma 2011 campaign, RUB 116,900,000 came from legal bodies, over RUB 19 500 000 – from private donors and over RUB 86,000,000 – from the party itself and its regional bodies.

        Individual candidates rely entirely on support from political parties they represent; self-finance is almost unknown for them. Only billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov could provide himself the funds for the presidential campaign 2012. Mr Putin has submitted RUB 0for his campaign, as well as Mr Mironov of Just Russia, Mr Zyuganov of Communist Party of Russian Federation (and they all are people of means). Mr Prokhorov has submitted RUB 40,000,000 or 10% out of the possible election fund.

        Political parties did not have other methods of generating campaign funds, such as owning their own businesses or trusts. Now, direct public funding provides political parties with revenues that allows them cover most of their expenses.

        Importantly, political parties are entitled to receive financial aid from the state based on the outcome of the previous election (as described above). These funds are not explicitly itemized in the preliminary and final financial reports submitted to the CEC during the electoral campaign; however, they are most likely reflected as the party’s own funds. According to GRECO (2012), the four parliamentary parties received RUB 3,325,065,365 of state funding between 2008 and 2010, purely on the basis of the parties’ success in the previous legislative elections, with United Russia obtaining the most state support at RUB 2,274,794,405. The direct public funding comprises a significant contribution to parties’ campaigns.

        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

        United Russia final financial report for State Duma election 2011, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/duma2011/finance/finotchet/edrositog.pdf

        Just Russia final financial report for State Duma election 2011, available athttp://www.cikrf.ru/banners/duma2011/finance/finotchet/spravrositog.PDF

        LIberal Democratic Party final financial report for State Duma election 2011, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/duma2011/finance/finotchet/LIberal Democratic Party_itog.PDF

        Communist Party final financial report for State Duma election 2011, available athttp://www.cikrf.ru/banners/duma2011/finance/finotchet/Communist Party_itog.PDF

        Mr Putin’s final financial report to CEC, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident2012/finance/itogputin.PDF

        Mr Mironov’s final financial report to CEC, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident2012/finance/itogmironov.PDF

        Mr Zyuganov’s final financial report to CEC, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident2012/finance/itogzuganov.PDF

        Mr Prokhorov’s final financial report to CEC, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident2012/finance/itogprohorov.PDF

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • 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

        There have been documented instances of violations of contribution or expenditure limits but there was no trial of relevant court rulings.

        Journalists, concerned citizens and CSOs were making public dozens of incidents of violations of election campaigns 2011-2012. To fight them the authorities were using old tactics – admitting a small number of uncovered violations, prosecuting a few scapegoats to demonstrate that the scale of violations is very small and insignificant.

        Two weeks after the December 4, 2011 legislative election a joint preliminary report by the Interior Ministry and the Investigative Committee was released stating that 2,091 administrative cases have been opened into violations, with the city of Moscow a leader with 492 cases, trailed by the regions of Stavropol (96) and Samara (88).

        More than half of the violations had to do with illegal campaign materials, while a quarter involved breaches of rules for public events. Only 53 criminal cases have been opened nationwide since the Duma campaign kicked off in November 2011, but five of them were dropped, the report said. Suspects have been established for only 10 of the remaining cases.

        In mid January 2012, Prosecutor General Yury Chaika summed up the results and said that a total of 95 people across the country have been punished over some 3,000 legal violations during the December 2011 State Duma elections during his report to the then President Dmitry Medvedev. Chaika did not elaborate on the punishment meted out to the violators. Chaika's comments drew immediate criticism, with the independent elections watchdog Golos and the Communist Party saying they had documented a higher number of violations. The same approach was applied after Presidential 2012 election.

        Interestingly enough, opposition parties that were promising to challenge at court the results of 2011 State Duma elections ultimately decided it – most likely they were satisfied with what they got.

        It is impossible to separate violation of contribution limits and violation of expenditure limits, as most often they go hand in hand, when a political party or staff of an individual candidate campaign fund accepts and spends funds in illegal way. With regard to financial contributions that circumvent the regulatory framework, there were no relevant court rulings and it’s illegal to call any such incidents “violations of law”.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree - There have been documented instances of violations of administrative and procedural standards during the latest round of the Russian elections. There is little information in the Russian media regarding violations concerning political finance contributions and expenditures. This largely stems from two facts: the CEC does not always itemize the context of the alleged violations submitted to it and the general issue of poor regulation and enforcement relating to political finance.

        The foremost issue is the fact that the existing law on electoral finance does not necessarily cover in practice all aspects of political competition and a large number of financial contributions circumvent the regulatory framework. In 2012, GRECO stated in its report on transparency in electoral funding that “considerable financial flows in contemporary Russian politics, in particular, those pertaining to elections, fall outside the regulated area”, suggesting that as much as 60% of each party’s specifically designated fund was acquired through shadow funding, including the misuse of private donations by election candidates.

        The issue of shadow funding is an alleged one, as it is difficult to identify, trace and expose violations which are set up to appear legal. There are no reports in the media relating to such violations, unless there are discussions of work undertaken by scholars investigating corruption and shadow financing. An additional challenge to monitoring potential violations to such contributions and expenditures is the use of cash in transactions with political parties, despite the fact that such interaction is the direct violation of the law.

        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

        Russian media was actively covering incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws in 2011-2012. See, for example: “Sverdlovskim ministram razdali predvybornye zadaniya”, an article by Mariya Plyusnina, Kommersant daily, September 20, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1777092

        “Biznes na vyborakh”, an article by Sergei Guriev and Oleg Tsyvinski, Vedomosti daily, October 25, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/1401813/biznesnavyborah

        See also a report “Corruption in Procurement and Shadow Campaign Financing: Evidence from Russia” by Maxim Mironov (IE Business School) and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya (Paris School of Economics; New Economic School), October 2011, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1946806

        “United Russia Official Buys Votes”, an article by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily, 01 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-official-buys-votes/446792.html

        “Chistota urny”, editorial, Vedomosti daily, November 01, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/1408619/chistota_urny

        “Zhalobnaya imitatsiya”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, November 17, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1423894/zhalobnaya_imitaciya

        “Churov reshil sam”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, November 28, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1436303/churovreshilsam

        “Partii obmenyalis’ narusheniyami”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Nataliya Korchenkova, Vsevolod Inyutin, Kommersant daily, December 01, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1827973

        “Communists Won't Appeal State Duma Results”, editorial, the Moscow Times daily, December 11, 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/communists-wont-appeal-state-duma-results/472852.html

        “Popytki osporit itogi proslogodnikh vyborov v Gosdumu provalilis’”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Mariya Zheleznova, Vedomosti daily, December 24, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/7485451/izbiratelnepoterpevshij

        “Probe Finds Violations But Little Vote-Rigging”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 22 December 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/probe-finds-violations-but-little-vote-rigging/450289.html

        “Vladimir Churov potreboval zashitit’ prava chlenov izbirkomov”, an article by Nataliya Gorodetskaya, Maxim Ivanov and Evgeniya Sycheva, December 23, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1844127

        “Fal’shivka s Fronta”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, January 10, 2012, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/50385.html

        “95 People Punished Over 3,000 Parliamentary Vote Violations”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 19 January 2012, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/95-people-punished-over-3000-parliamentary-vote-violations/451262.html

        “Prokurory ne isportili imidzh izbiratelnoi sistemy”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 19, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1479258/spisok_chajki

        “Porugayut i razoidutsya”, an article by Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, January 27, 2012, available at available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1486413/porugayutirazojdutsya

        “Stat’i Vladimira Putina sverili s bukvoi zakona”, an article by Nataliya Korchenkova, Kommersant daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1861920

        “Elections Commission Says Putin Articles Were Informational, Not Campaigning”, editorial, the Moscow Times daily, 01 February 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-commission-says-putin-articles-were-informational-not-campaigning/452066.html

        “Golos Calls Putin a Main Electoral Violator”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/golos-calls-putin-a-main-electoral-violator/452034.html

        “Chaika ne stal ob’yasnyat’sya, soslavshis’ na tainu”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/50742.html

        “1000 rublei za moroz i Putina”, an article by Maxim Glikin and Roman Shishov, Vedomosti daily, February 02, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1491713/1000rubzamorozi_putina

        “Elections Chief Admits Astrakhan Violations”, an article by Jonathan Earle, the Moscow Times daily, 23 April 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-chief-admits-astrakhan-violations/457249.html

        “Churov s kollegami nashli 135 narushenii na prezidentskikh vyborakh”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 12, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/newsline/news/1731351/zryaudalilitroih

        “Zhalobnyi otchet”, an article by Vitali Petrov, Rossiskaya gazeta dialy, May 12, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/05/12/jalobi.html

        “TsIK nazval loshnymi bolee 80% zhalob po povodu vyborov prezidenta”, an article from NewsRu information portal, May 11, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/11may2012/tzik.html

        “Mera Birobidzhana Sergeya Parkhomenko oshtrafovali iz-za agitatsii za Putina”, an article at NewsRu information website, posted on May 12, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/12may2012/parhom.html

        “Vybory v teni”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, August 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2823371/vyboryvteni

        “Prokhrova pobeda”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, August 30, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/3404631/prohorova_pobeda

        “Vladimir Lukin poshel po sledam perenosnykh urn”, an article by Anton Arsen’ev and Vsevolod Inyutin, Kommersant daily, January 29, 2013, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2115156

        “Prava konchayutsya v urne”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, March 15, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/10077461/pravakonchayutsyav_urne

        Golos Association website, data on violations at State Duma 2011 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2011-12-04

        Golos Association website, data on violations at Presidential 2012 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2012-03-04

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

  • expand button!

    Reporting and Public Disclosure

    More about category
    composite
    55
    • 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

        In law, political parties report itemized contributions and expenditures both during and outside electoral campaign periods. Individual candidates have to do it only during electoral campaign periods.

        According to Federal law 95 “On political parties”, "political parties, their regional branches and other registered structural units have to keep tax and accounting records in the manner and terms established by the pertinent laws applicable to legal entities... as well as submit records of income and expenditure of party funds to the relevant election commissions" (see para.1 of Art. 34 and GRECO 2012 Report).

        First of all, the law requires that a political party provide general information on its donations to the Central Election Commission (CEC) within 30 days after the official announcement of parliamentary election results. The CEC is responsible for reviewing the report (prior to that report, the preliminary financial report is provided within the package of documents necessary for registration of the party candidates list.) "The election records must contain information on sources and amounts of funds transferred to the accounts of the party, its regional branches and other registered structural units; on the value of property received in the form of donations by the party and its structural units; on the donors; and on expenditure of funds by the party and its structural units." (GRECO 2012 Report)

        "Secondly, parties are obliged to submit to the CEC annually, at the latest on 1 April of the year following the reporting period, a consolidated annual financial report on income and expenditure of the party and its regional and other structural units" (GRECO 2012 Report).

        According to June 28, 2014 amendments to the Federal law “On political parties”, political parties established before April 4, 2012 but no later than April 1, 2015 have to submit their financial reports for the years 2013-2014. The political parties established after April 4, 2012 have to submit their financial reports from the year of their establishment until January 1, 2015.

        "The annual report must contain information on sources and amounts of funds transferred to the accounts of the party, its regional branches and other registered structural unit in the reporting year; on expenditure of such funds; on party assets, indicating the value and details of registration; and in respect of property received in the form of donations, information on the donors. The financial information is broken down on data concerning the party and its different regional and other structural units. Expenditure by the party, its regional branches and other registered structural units for the preparation and conduct of elections is to be accounted for separately and is also included in the annual party report" (GRECO 2012 Report and Art. 34 of the Federal Law "On Political Parties").

        "Both the quarterly and the consolidated annual reports must specify income and expenses in the following manner and on the basis of forms established in print and in electronic form by the CEC. Information on donations made by natural or legal persons in monetary form or in the form of other property has to be stated separately. In case of non-monetary donations, their monetary value is to be assessed in accordance with the law" (GRECO 2012 Report and Art. 34 of the Federal Law "On Political Parties").

        According to Art. 62 of the Federal Law "On Presidential Elections", presidential candidates must submit preliminary and final itemized financial reports to the CEC. Both the preliminary and the final reports include itemized contributions and expenditures of the electoral fund set up for the presidential candidate. The final financial report must be submitted to the CEC no more than 30 days after the official publication of the presidential election results. The preliminary financial report is included in the final report.

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001, available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/.

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        Resolutions Central Election Commission of May 12, 2011 No. 10/87-6 “On instructions regulating the formation and expenditure of electoral funds of political parties and of their regional branches in election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” (available at http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/55071396/) and No. 10/88-6 “On instructions regulating the formation and expenditure of electoral funds of candidates in election of the President of the Russian Federation” (available at http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/55071396/).

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.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

        In law, political parties and individual candidates report on a quarterly basis during campaign periods.

        The legislative campaign 2011 started on August 30 and ended on December 3 (the total period slightly over three months).

        The presidential campaign 2012 started on November 26, 2011 and ended on March 3, and lasted slightly over three months.

        According to the Federal law “On political parties” (see para.1 of Art. 34) and the federal law 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” (para. 9-1 of Art. 59), "the electoral subjects have to present to the relevant election commission, not later than 30 days from the official publication of the election results, a final financial report on the size, sources and expenditure from their electoral fund" (GRECO 2012 Report). However, "specific election laws may require additional reports to be presented before the elections (para. 2 of Art.68 of the Federal Law “On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” and Art.62 of the Federal Law “On elections of the President of the Russian Federation”). Thus, in elections to the State Duma and in presidential elections, an initial financial report is to be presented alongside other registration documents." (GRECO 2012 Report)

        By law, political parties and individual candidates have to submit their financial reports twice during the campaign season – once upon registering for the campaign, and once upon the conclusion of the campaign period. This also applies to presidential candidates, who, according to Art. 62 of the Federal Law "On Presidential Elections" submit a preliminary financial report during the period of registration and a final report, which is provided to the CEC within 30 days of the official publication of the results of the presidential election.

        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

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001, available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/.

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

      • expand button!
        23
        Score
        MODERATE
        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

        In law, political parties are required to report their financial information on a quarterly basis outside of electoral campaign periods. Individual candidates are not required to report their financial information outside of electoral campaign periods at all.

        According to the Federal law “On political parties”, "political parties, their regional branches and other registered structural units have to submit records of income and expenditure of party funds to the relevant election commissions" (see para.1 of Art. 34 and GRECO 2012 Report).

        First of all, the law requires a political party to provide quarterly records on its donations to the Central Election Commission (CEC), which reviews the report.

        Secondly, "parties are obliged to submit to the CEC annually, at the latest on 1 April of the year following the reporting period, a consolidated annual financial report on income and expenditure of the party and its regional and other structural units" (GRECO 2012 Report). According to June 28, 2014 amendments to the Federal Law “On political parties”, political parties established prior to April 4, 2012 but no later that April 1, 2015 have to submit their financial reports over years 2013-2014. The political parties, established after April 4, 2012, have to submit their financial reports from the year of their establishment till January 1, 2015.

        "Both the quarterly and the consolidated annual reports must specify income and expenses in the following manner and on the basis of forms established in print and in electronic form by the CEC" (Art. 34 and GRECO 2012 Report).

        No financial reports outside of election campaigns are required for individual candidates.

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001, available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/.

        Financial reports of Russian political parties, Central Election Commission website, http://cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/rashod.html

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

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

        In practice, during the most recent national election cycle political parties and individual candidates reported itemized financial information on a quarterly basis. The quarterly reports contained information regarding receipt of funds from specific types of donors and the relevant expenditures. Final reports provided greater granularity and provided the total sums received from different type of donors, as well as the itemized list of the names of legal entities and individuals who donated to the campaign. According to experts, parties meet the reporting requirements required by law.

        Detailed information on donors is compulsory under Russian legislation if a contribution exceeds RUB 40000 ($1143) from citizens and RUB 400000 ($11430) from legal bodies for legislative and presidential elections. However, annual financial reports from political parties often include donors below the above threshold (see the report on United Russia). The parties and candidates submit final financial reports that have to contain all original documents. These documents are later reviewed by the Central Election Commission, which then decides whether there are any issues with the financial reporting. These reports are stored for five to ten years by the CEC, after which they are destroyed. The general public has access to the quarterly and final/annual reports, as well as access to the findings of the CEC review report. However, there is no public access to the supporting financial documents which the political parties provide to the CEC.

        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

        Central Election Commission website, financial reports of political parties, legislative election 2011, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/duma_2011/finance/index.html

        Central Election Commission website, financial reports of individual candidates, presidential election 2012, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident_2012/finance/otchet.html

        “Deklaratsiya vlasti”, an article by Andrei Zaborski, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 24, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/21/cik-site.html

        “Skromnost’ ukrashaet”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 26, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/26/pravoedelo.html

        “Partiya opytnykh lyudei”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/31/patrioti.html

        “Skromyi urozhai”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/31/yabloko.html

        “Predvybornaya nepravda”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, November 14, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/14/cik.html

        “Partii pomeryalis’ sponsorami”, an article by Irina Granik, Kommersant daily, November 19, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1820525

        “Prokhorov sdal kandidatskuyu”, an article by Liliya Biryukova and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, January 26, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1485324/prohorovsdalkandidatskuyu

        “Deklaratsii ne proveryayut”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 27, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1486414/deklaraciineproveryayut

        “Putin dognal Prokhorova”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, February 6, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1494943/putindognalprohorova

        “Osobo tsennyi kandidaty”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 9, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/09/otchet.html

        “Legislators' Income Statements Reveal Wealth”, an article by Anatoly Medetsky, the Moscow Times daily, 15 April 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/legislators-income-statements-reveal-wealth/456745.html

        “Chempiony dvukh palat”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1643632/chempionydvuhpalat

        “Mudretsy v dele”, an article by Konstantin Novikov and Tamara Shkel’, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/16/dohody.html

        “Deklaratsita o snegokhodakh”, an article by Taisiya Bekbulatova and Sofiya Samokhina, Kommersant daily, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1917017

        “Tsement edinorossov”, an article by Nataliya Kostenko and Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, June 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1847916/cement_edinorossov

        “Golosa izbiratelei vzleteli v tzene”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, October 26, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2052797

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        Central Electoral Commission report on annual financial reports of political parties (2011), http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/svodnotchet12.html

        A detailed annual financial report for United Russia (2012), http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/party/SFOEdnRossia.PDF

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • 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

        In practice, financial reports by political parties and individual candidates do not include all types of contributions, such as in-kind contributions and personal identifiers, nor are they itemized.

        Personal identifiers are compulsory under Russian legislation if a contribution exceeds RUB 40000 ($1143) for citizens and RUB 400000 ($11430) for legal bodies for legislative and presidential elections. The financial reports by parties and candidates have only the names of donors listed without any specific details (i.e., the first name and the last name and residence – city or region for citizens; legal entities are listed by their names and tax identification numbers (INN in Russian)). This is true of all financial reports, ranging from United Russia political party to contender Gennadi Zyuganov.

        The parties and candidates submit final financial reports that have to contain all original documents. These documents are later checked and accepted or not by Central Election Commission. They are stored for five to ten years by CEC and then destroyed. The general public does not have access to such data.

        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

        Central Election Commission website, financial reports of political parties, legislative election 2011, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/duma_2011/finance/index.html

        Central Election Commission website, financial reports of individual candidates, presidential election 2012, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident_2012/finance/otchet.html

        “Deklaratsiya vlasti”, an article by Andrei Zaborski, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 24, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/21/cik-site.html

        “Skromnost’ ukrashaet”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 26, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/26/pravoedelo.html

        “Partiya opytnykh lyudei”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/31/patrioti.html

        “Skromyi urozhai”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/31/yabloko.html

        “Predvybornaya nepravda”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, November 14, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/14/cik.html

        “Partii pomeryalis’ sponsorami”, an article by Irina Granik, Kommersant daily, November 19, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1820525

        “Prokhorov sdal kandidatskuyu”, an article by Liliya Biryukova and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, January 26, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1485324/prohorovsdalkandidatskuyu

        “Deklaratsii ne proveryayut”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 27, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1486414/deklaraciineproveryayut

        “Putin dognal Prokhorova”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, February 6, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1494943/putindognalprohorova

        “Osobo tsennyi kandidaty”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 9, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/09/otchet.html

        “Legislators' Income Statements Reveal Wealth”, an article by Anatoly Medetsky, the Moscow Times daily, 15 April 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/legislators-income-statements-reveal-wealth/456745.html

        “Chempiony dvukh palat”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1643632/chempionydvuhpalat

        “Mudretsy v dele”, an article by Konstantin Novikov and Tamara Shkel’, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/16/dohody.html

        “Deklaratsita o snegokhodakh”, an article by Taisiya Bekbulatova and Sofiya Samokhina, Kommersant daily, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1917017

        “Tsement edinorossov”, an article by Nataliya Kostenko and Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, June 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1847916/cement_edinorossov

        “Golosa izbiratelei vzleteli v tzene”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, October 26, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2052797

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

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

        In law, financial information from political parties and individual candidates must be made available to the public.

        Russian political parties are required to submit quarterly and annual reports to the Central Election Commission (CEC).

        According to Russian legislation (para.3 of Art.35 of the federal law “On political parties”), "the CEC has to publish on its website the consolidated annual financial reports of political parties within two months of their delivery by the parties" (GRECO 2012 Report).

        As regards information on election campaign funding, Federal Law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” (para.8 of Art.59) "provides that prior to elections, the relevant election commissions have to periodically (at least once every two weeks) send information on the receipt and use of electoral funds to the media for publication. Within three days of the submission of such data, it is to be published in state or municipal journals, depending on the type of election" (GRECO 2012 Report).

        The scope of information subject to publication is determined by the law (see CEC’s Resolutions of May 12, 2011 No. 10/93-6 “On forms submitted to the periodic state printed media and subject to mandatory publication of information from consolidated financial reports of political parties having registered federal lists of candidates, and the auditing of such reports, as well as of information on receipts and expenditure from electoral funds of political parties, their regional branches in election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” and No. 10/94-6 “On forms submitted to the periodic state printed media and subject to mandatory publication of information from consolidated financial reports of political parties having registered candidates for the post of the President of the Russian Federation, and on the auditing of such reports, as well as of information on receipts and expenditure of electoral funds of candidates in election of the President of the Russian Federation”).

        "For both types of elections, information on the returned donations, including the reasons for the return, on the total size of accumulated electoral funds and on the total expenditure thereof is also to be included (para.19 of art.68 of the Federal Law “On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” and para.8 of Art.62 of the Federal Law “On elections of the President of the Russian Federation”). All pertinent financial reports can be found on the CEC’s official web site" (GRECO 2012 Report).

        "Secondly, para.9-1 of Art.59 of the Federal Law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” requires the relevant election commissions to issue copies of relevant reports on the receipt and use of electoral funds to the media within five days of their receipt. The specific election laws may oblige state or municipal journals (depending on the type of election) to publish the aforementioned financial reports or data contained in such reports provided to them by the election commissions. As concerns elections to the State Duma, para.6 of Art.68 of the Federal Law “On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” contains such an obligation on the media, requiring disclosure of initial and final financial reports within three days of their receipt, as well as an obligation on the relevant election commission to publish financial reports on its website within five days of their receipt" (GRECO 2012 Report).

        "Thirdly, in federal elections, the CEC is to provide both chambers of parliament and the media with data on the receipt and expenditure from the electoral funds within three months of the official publication of the election results. Within one month of the submission of the aforementioned data to parliament, the CEC has to publish it in its official bulletin and – in elections to the State Duma - to make it available to other media for publication or – in presidential elections – to publish it on the Internet" (see para.7 of Art.70 of the Federal Law “On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation” and para.9 of Art.64 of the Federal Law “On elections of the President of the Russian Federation” and GRECO 2012 Report).

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001, available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/.

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

        CEC’s Resolution of May 12, 2011 No. 10/93-6 “On forms submitted to the periodic state printed media and subject to mandatory publication of information from consolidated financial reports of political parties having registered federal lists of candidates, and the auditing of such reports, as well as of information on receipts and expenditure from electoral funds of political parties, their regional branches in election of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/inv/postancik/Zp11093.jsp

        CEC’s Resolution of May 12, 2011 No. 10/94-6 “On forms submitted to the periodic state printed media and subject to mandatory publication of information from consolidated financial reports of political parties having registered candidates for the post of the President of the Russian Federation, and on the auditing of such reports, as well as of information on receipts and expenditure of electoral funds of candidates in election of the President of the Russian Federation”, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/inv/postancik/Zp11094.jsp

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

      • expand button!
        27
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent can citizens easily access the financial information of all political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        In practice, citizens can easily access financial information of all political parties and individual candidates - the records are available online (at Central Election Commission website). The records are free of charge and are easily accessible. Records for political parties are in machine readable format (xml), while records for presidential candidates are not in a machine readable format (in PDF).

        Individual candidates disclose their sources of funding and expenditures every four to six years, at the beginning of a political campaign, unless they are public officials and have to disclose their assets on an annual basis (this is the case with Vladimir Putin – as President and one-time Prime-Minister of Russia he is required to disclose his assets annually) (see Art. 68 of the Federal Law "On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation" and Federal Law "On preventing corruption").

        The main issue with accessing the financial records of political parties and individual candidates is not to do with their availability or the cost of access (the information is provided for free on the Central Election Commission website). The issue is the reliability and completeness of the information provided by the candidates. Given the fact that no detailed information on donors is included in reports (neither on individuals nor on corporate donors), such data doesn't provide a lot of facts and cannot be considered reliable.

        According to experts, all information on financial reports is available to public.

        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

        Financial reports of Russian political parties, Central Election Commission website, http://cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/rashod.html

        Financial reports of individual candidates during 2012 presidential election, Central Election Commission website, http://cikrf.ru/banners/prezident_2012/finance/index.html

        Russian media was actively covering financial information provided by political parties and individual candidates in 2011-2012. See, for example: “Deklaratsiya vlasti”, an article by Andrei Zaborski, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 24, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/21/cik-site.html

        “Skromnost’ ukrashaet”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 26, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/26/pravoedelo.html

        “Partiya opytnykh lyudei”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/31/patrioti.html

        “Skromyi urozhai”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/31/yabloko.html

        “Predvybornaya nepravda”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, November 14, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/14/cik.html

        “Partii pomeryalis’ sponsorami”, an article by Irina Granik, Kommersant daily, November 19, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1820525

        “Prokhorov sdal kandidatskuyu”, an article by Liliya Biryukova and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, January 26, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1485324/prohorovsdalkandidatskuyu

        “Deklaratsii ne proveryayut”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 27, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1486414/deklaraciineproveryayut

        “Putin dognal Prokhorova”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, February 6, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1494943/putindognalprohorova

        “Osobo tsennyi kandidaty”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 9, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/09/otchet.html

        “Legislators' Income Statements Reveal Wealth”, an article by Anatoly Medetsky, the Moscow Times daily, 15 April 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/legislators-income-statements-reveal-wealth/456745.html

        “Chempiony dvukh palat”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1643632/chempionydvuhpalat

        “Mudretsy v dele”, an article by Konstantin Novikov and Tamara Shkel’, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/16/dohody.html

        “Deklaratsita o snegokhodakh”, an article by Taisiya Bekbulatova and Sofiya Samokhina, Kommersant daily, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1917017

        “Tsement edinorossov”, an article by Nataliya Kostenko and Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, June 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1847916/cement_edinorossov

        “Otchet pustykh koshelkov”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta daily, November 12, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/11/10/partii-site.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        Secondary sources: Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #273 "On preventing corruption." http://www.consultant.ru/document/consdocLAW_156929/

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        28
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent is financial information published in a standardized format?More about indicator

        In practice, all financial information by political parties is available in a standardized format (in both xml and PDF). The CEC requires parties to submit their financial reports in machine-readable form and provides parties with detailed instructions regarding the presentation of the file to the CEC. The CEC website also offers this information in rtf and PDF formats. Individual candidates' financial information is published in a standardized format, according to the criteria set by the Central Election Commission (in PDF).

        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

        Financial reports of Russian political parties, Central Election Commission website, http://cikrf.ru/politparty/finance/rashod.html

        Financial reports of individual candidates during 2012 presidential election, Central Election Commission website, http://cikrf.ru/banners/prezident_2012/finance/index.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        Normative documents setting out the standardized format for submitting financial information for political parties (the CEC website) http://www.cikrf.ru/politparty/docs/index.html.

      • 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

        In practice, mainstream journalism media outlets frequently use officially published financial data in their reporting.

        Russian journalists often and willingly cover information from financial reports of political parties and individual candidates. Almost all major media produce materials on this issue, as amply documented in the sources. However, recent elections demonstrated that the media is becoming more cautious about their commentary on the reliability of such financial reports, especially with regard to the ruling United Russia political party and Vladimir Putin, former Prime-Minister and current President. While five years ago, journalists would speculate on the origin of campaign contributions of various candidates (especially existing public officials) or political parties, such commentary has been considerably curtailed, with reporters exclusively relying on hard statistical data obtained from the CEC and experts’ opinion. Leaked information – due to anti-defamation legislation – is not frequently used at the national level; however, some information on campaign contributions and assets held by state Duma politicians previously provided by anti-corruption campaigner Aleksey Navalny was reported. On the one hand, this is a turn toward better quality reporting; on the other hand, it makes journalism just an echo of official publications.

        According to experts, journalists rarely protect the integrity in the reporting of electoral campaigns, failing to present objective information, and they rarely engage in any real analysis of political financing. This is partly the reflection of the lack of media freedom in Russia, whereby all the major TV channels are state-owned, while independent media's rights are continuously curtailed, with independent TV channel Dozhd losing its major distributors earlier in 2014, while Lenta.ru and radio station Ekho Moskvy had recently seen a change in publishers, who represent the interests of the Kremlin.

        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

        “Skromnost’ ukrashaet”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, October 26, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/26/pravoedelo.html

        “Predvybornaya nepravda”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, November 14, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/14/cik.html

        “Partii pomeryalis’ sponsorami”, an article by Irina Granik, Kommersant daily, November 19, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1820525

        “Prokhorov sdal kandidatskuyu”, an article by Liliya Biryukova and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, January 26, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1485324/prohorovsdalkandidatskuyu

        “Deklaratsii ne proveryayut”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 27, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1486414/deklaraciineproveryayut

        “Putin dognal Prokhorova”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, February 6, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1494943/putindognalprohorova

        “Osobo tsennyi kandidaty”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 9, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/09/otchet.html

        “Legislators' Income Statements Reveal Wealth”, an article by Anatoly Medetsky, the Moscow Times daily, 15 April 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/legislators-income-statements-reveal-wealth/456745.html

        “Chempiony dvukh palat”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Elena Myazina, Vedomosti daily, April 16, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1643632/chempionydvuhpalat

        “Tsement edinorossov”, an article by Nataliya Kostenko and Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, June 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1847916/cement_edinorossov

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political financing, phone interview, August 20, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "Dumskaya komissiya ne stala proveryat dokhody deputatov obvinnenykh Navalnym v koruptsii," RBC Daily, December 5, 2013, available at http://rbcdaily.ru/politics/562949989842932

        "Navalny: podozritelnye dokhody pozvolili predstavitelyu altaiskikh edinorossov v Gosdume Neverovu kontrolirovat' nedvizhimost v Podmoskovie otsenochnoi stoimostiu 90 mln rublei," CTD, September 5, 2013, http://www.cdelat.ru/articles/navalnyjpodozritelnyedohodypozvolilipredstavitelyualtajskihedinorossovvgosdumeneverovukontrolirovatnedvizhimostv_pod/

        "Yuri Fedutinov, uvolenny s posta direktora 'Ekho Moskvy': eto reshenie prinimal lichno Lesin," TV Rain, February 18, 2014, http://tvrain.ru/articles/jurijfedutinovuvolennyjspostadirektoraehamoskvyetoreshenieprinimallichnolesin-363109/

        "Dorogim chitatelyam ot dorogoi redaktsii," Lenta.ru, March 12, 2014, http://lenta.ru/info/posts/statement/

        "Telekanal 'Dozhd' teryaet auditoriu," Izvestia, January 31, 2014, http://izvestia.ru/news/564921

      • 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

        In practice, there were a number of news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of electoral laws. The majority of news reports or documented instances of violations were procedural, including instances of vote-buying, ballot-rigging, and use of administrative resources. The vast majority of such publications were produced by independent media and political movements (not political parties). Official newspapers and TV channels ignored or downplayed such information. There were no direct reports of the violation of political finance laws in the Russian media.

        For example, in the video, dated Oct. 24, 2011 and available on YouTube, Denis Agashin, city manager for the Republic of Udmurtia capital, Izhevsk, explicitly tells veterans' organizations that their funding will depend on how their municipal districts vote in the State Duma elections in December 2011, according to the report by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily. He was later fined RUB 2000 ($ 57) for that.

        Another example: the district head in Moscow asked local businessmen to collect absentee ballots for the upcoming State Duma elections from their employees and hand them over to local officials, Gazeta.ru information portal said on November 23, 2011.

        The conversation between Alexander Aksyonov, head of the Sokolinaya Gora district in the city's east, and several unidentified entrepreneurs, was captured on audio, the report said, according to the publication by Alexey Eremenko at the Moscow Times daily on November 24, 2011.

        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

        “Sverdlovskim ministram razdali predvybornye zadaniya”, an article by Mariya Plyusnina, Kommersant daily, September 20, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1777092

        “Biznes na vyborakh”, an article by Sergei Guriev and Oleg Tsyvinski, Vedomosti daily, October 25, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/1401813/biznesnavyborah

        See also a report “Corruption in Procurement and Shadow Campaign Financing: Evidence from Russia” by Maxim Mironov (IE Business School) and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya (Paris School of Economics; New Economic School), October 2011, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1946806

        “United Russia Official Buys Votes”, an article by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily, 01 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-official-buys-votes/446792.html

        “Fal’shivka s Fronta”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, January 10, 2012, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/50385.html

        “Golos Calls Putin a Main Electoral Violator”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/golos-calls-putin-a-main-electoral-violator/452034.html

        “Chaika ne stal ob’yasnyat’sya, soslavshis’ na tainu”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/50742.html

        “1000 rublei za moroz I Putina”, an article by Maxim Glikin and Roman Shshov, Vedomosti daily, February 02, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1491713/1000rubzamorozi_putina

        “Mera Birobidzhana Sergeya Parkhomenko oshtrafovali iz-za agitatsii za Putina”, an article at NewsRu information website, posted on May 12, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/12may2012/parhom.html

        “Vybory v teni”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, August 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/2823371/vyboryvteni

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political financing, phone interview, August 20, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

      • expand button!
        31
        Score
        25
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying?More about indicator

        In practice, there were many news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying. A number of such incidents were reported by independent media and civil society movements. Furthermore, political parties themselves frequently issued allegations of vote-buying against each other, with many of these allegations being picked up by national and regional media outlets. The vast majority of such accusations were produced by independent media. Official newspapers and TV channels preferred to ignore or downplay such information, or accuse opposition of falsifying it.

        In one instance, Denis Agashev, an Izhevsk city manager and a prominent United Russia supporter, pledged to provide financing to a group of veterans for having them cast votes for United Russia in the 4 December 2011 legislative elections. Agashin was unknowingly video-taped by Communist Party members and the story gained prominent traction in national and regional media.

        In another example, civil servants and teachers at Moscow were made to attend a pro-Putin rally on February 4, 2012. Some were offered a reward up to RUB 5000 ($143), according to an article by Maxim Glikin and Roman Shshov at Vedomosti daily. There also seems to be evidence of pressure from corporate entities. Political party Just Russia complained about violations in Chelyabinsk, where the party claimed that individuals dressed in Mechel, OJSC T-shirts watched voters fill out their ballot and then proceeded to give out gifts to those voters who had filled out their ballot.

        A large proportion of vote-buying reports was picked up by the media following allegations by one of the major parties competing in elections. For example, in November 2011, United Russia claimed that Communist Party held an illegal concert in the Perm region, during which party members handed out gifts and offered free legal consultations. The Communist Party denied the charges, stating that the gathering was in fact a commemoration event to mark the October revolution. In another instance, the LIberal Democratic Party claimed that United Russia members were distributing buckwheat grain to Muscovites in exchanges for their passport details. It's worth noting that none of these reports have been proven in a court of law.

        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

        “Sverdlovskim ministram razdali predvybornye zadaniya”, an article by Mariya Plyusnina, Kommersant daily, September 20, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1777092

        “Governor Accused of Interfering With Duma Vote”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 25 October 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-official-buys-votes/446792.html

        “Shkolnaya partiya”, an article by Irina Novikova, Elena Mangileva and Anastasiya Grineva, Vedomosti daily, November 01, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1408622/shkolnaya_partiya

        “United Russia Official Buys Votes”, an article by Alexander Bratersky, the Moscow Times daily, 01 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-official-buys-votes/446792.html

        “Edinuyu Rossiyu lovyat na byudzhetnikhah”, an article by Vsevolod Inyutin, Ruslan Nuriev and Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, November 7, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1810518

        “Voronezh Officials 'Pressured' to Vote”, an article by Alexey Eremenko and Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 08 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/voronezh-officials-pressured-to-vote/447270.html

        “Prosrym ludyam vse ravno za kogo golosovat”, an article by Tatiyana Drogaeva, Kommersant daily, November 21, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1820914

        “Report: United Russia in Vote Grab”, an article by Alexey Eremenko, the Moscow Times daily, 24 November 2011, available at

        “Pobeditelei ne sudyat”, editorial at Novaya Gazeta biweekly, November 30, 2011, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/49750.html

        “Zakrepitelnoe udostoverenie”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, December 12, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1441149/zakrepitelnoe_udostoverenie

        “Izbiratelei podvergli ugovoram”, an article by Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, December 29, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1847536

        “1000 rublei za moroz i Putina”, an article by Maxim Glikin and Roman Shshov, Vedomosti daily, February 02, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1491713/1000rubzamorozi_putina

        “Otkrepitelnoe pravo”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, March 05, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/library/news/1524585/otkrepitelnoe_pravo

        Golos Assotiation website, data on vote-buying at State Dume 2011 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2011-12-04/s/3866372892

        Golos Assotiation website, data on vote-buying at Presidential 2012 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2012-03-04/s/3866372892

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "'United Russia' trebuet snyat spisok Communist Party s dumskikh vyborov v Permskom krae za podkup izbiratelei," Echo, November 22, 2011, http://echo.msk.ru/news/832364-echo.html

        "Glavu Izhevska ne budut sudit za podkup izbiratelei," BBC Russia, December 1, 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2011/12/111201izhevskinvestigation.shtml

        "United Russia ne zametila podkup izbiratelei," Izvestia, October 30, 2011, http://izvestia.ru/news/505425

        "V Chelyabinske 'Just Russia' zhaluetsya na podkup izbiratelei i 'karuseli'," Ural Press, December 4, 2011, http://uralpress.ru/news/2011/12/04/v-chelyabinske-spravedlivaya-rossiya-zhaluetsya-na-podkup-izbirateley-i-kuruseli

        "Podkup izbiratelei," LIberal Democratic Party, September 29, 2011, http://www.LIberal Democratic Party-ural.ru/releases/podkup_izbirateley/

        "Sud otkazalsya snimat edinorossa s vyborov za podkup izbiratelei," DP.Ru, November 29, 2011, http://www.dp.ru/a/2011/11/29/Sudotkazalsnimat_edino/

      • expand button!
        32
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent do civil society organizations use political finance data?More about indicator

        In practice, a small number of civil society organizations use political finance data. Only 2 CSOs used official data during the most recent elections during 2011-2012.

        The first of those CSOs is the Association of Non-Profit Organizations “In Defense of Voters’ Rights «GOLOS»“ is a Russian non-profit organization which was founded in 2000 for the protection of Russian voters’ rights and the development of civic society.

        More than 3,000 Golos activists in 40 regions were monitoring the Duma elections. Golos was also running an interactive user-generated map of electoral violations nationwide. However, for its activities Golos was closed in summer 2013 making quite obvious the authorities are not going to tolerate any independent observers.

        The second CSO is Transparency International – Russia, the Russian chapter of international movement that actively monitored 2003 legislative election, was only partially involved in 2011-2012 electoral campaigns. It started a project called Declarator, which was centered on investigating official income declarations of Russian public officials, including State Duma deputies.

        Another CSO, a public movement Liga Izbiratelei or League of Voters, became involved in monitoring of Presidential election 2012, though it was largely focused on election campaign violations outside of political finance (vote-rigging, mostly). However, they also uncovered some interesting data that was passed to Central Election Commission and Office of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and used by media. It dealt with air time provided by federal TV channels to all contenders. Liga Izbiratelei was concerned (and supported it with second-by-second monitoring) that Prime Minister Putin’s – and a presidential nominee - official activities were covered with much more detail than any other contender.

        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

        Golos Assotiation website, data on violations at Presidential 2012 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2012-03-04

        Golos Assotiation website, data on violations at State Duma 2011 election, available at http://www.kartanarusheniy.org/2011-12-04

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Transparency International – Russia Declarator project, see more http://www.transparency.org.ru/deklaratcii/tcentr-ti-r-podal-zhalobu-v-tcik

        Liga Izbiratelei website http://ligaizbirateley.ru/

        “Lawmakers Demand Probe of Watchdog”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 01 December 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lawmakers-demand-probe-of-watchdog/448989.html

        “Elections Watchdog Claims Harassment”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 30 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-watchdog-claims-harassment/448900.html

        “Assotsiatsiya v zashitu Golosa”, an article by Nataliya Gorodetskaya, Alla Barkhatova and Victor Khamraev, Kommersant daily, December 01, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1828016

        “Media Pressured before Elections”, an article byNikolaus von Twickel, the Moscow Times daily, 02 December 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/media-pressured-before-elections/449095.html

        “Tsenzura – delo dobrovolnoe”, an article Ekaterina Vinokurova, Gazeta information portal, December 02, 2011, available at http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/elections2011/2011/11/28a3850322.shtml

        “Golos Overreaction Exposes Kremlin's Fears”, Editorial, the Moscow Times daily, 05 December 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/golos-overreaction-exposes-kremlins-fears/449168.html

        “Golosu ukazali diapason polnomochii”, an article by Jury Belov and Nataliya Bashlykova, Kommersant daily, January 20, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1854269

        “Golos Calls Putin a Main Electoral Violator”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/golos-calls-putin-a-main-electoral-violator/452034.html

        “Liga Izbiratelei obratilas’ v Genprokuraturu i sledstvennyi komitet”, an article by Sofiya Samokhina, Kommersant daily, April 23, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1921983

        “Pravozashitniki zamerili davlenie na aktivistov”, an article by Grigori Tumanov, Kommersant daily, February 13, 2013, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2126093

        “Justice Ministry Refuses to Check Golos Election Watchdog”, Editorail, the Moscow Times daily, February 27, 2013, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/justice-ministry-refuses-to-check-golos-election-watchdog/476081.html

        “Nabludatelei lishayut Golosa”, an article by Grigori Tumanov, Taisiya Bekbulatova and Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, April 10, 2013, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2166787?fp=32

        Liga Izbiratelei’s address to the Chairman of the CEC, available at http://ligaizbirateley.ru/hot/1.html

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

      • 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 have been significant political finance legal reforms and reform bills presented to the legislature in the last 10 years.

        For example, since its adoption in 2002, the federal law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” has been changed more than thirty times. Since its adoption in 2001, the federal law “On political parties” has been changed more than twenty times.

        In the past, a new law was adopted for each State Duma (legislative) election: in 1995 for the 1995 elections, in 1999 for the 1999 elections, 2002 for the 2003 elections and 2005 for the 2007 elections.

        Since 2006 amending electoral legislation has become a continuous process. In 2006 and 2007 the authorities amended the law on basic guarantees eleven times and they amended the law on the State Duma elections eight times. Between 2008 and 2011 the law on basic guarantees was subject to 28 amendments, while the law on State Duma elections underwent 17 amendments.

        Among other consequences of continuous reforming of electoral law, frequent changes in legislation have generated many outdated or archaic provisions and, generally, created inconsistencies among the existing legislative acts.

        While the regular funding of political parties is dealt with by the federal law “On political parties”, the regulation of the financing of election campaigns is currently scattered across numerous pieces of legislation and a great number of normative acts. Thus, at federal level, the legal framework comprises at least three different acts (the federal law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation”, the federal law “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation” and the federal law “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”). Although the present legislation does not contain a legal definition of “election financing,” there is broad agreement that such a notion includes: (1) financing and material support for the organization and conduct of elections; (2) financial and material aid to electoral subjects, including political parties; (3) procedural norms; (4) relevant guarantees and (5) liabilities.

        At the regional level, separate legislation regulates the campaign financing in elections to bodies of the federal subjects and of local self-government. In addition, many organizational and technical issues are governed by resolutions and decisions by election commissions and banking institutions, which are adopted anew for every upcoming election and whose prime objective is to provide instructions as regards the uniform application of the law.

        Comparative analysis of the legislative acts indicates that not only do most of the election laws repeat one another, but so do the resolutions and regulations issued by the CEC, which extensively cite the laws as well as the CEC’s own preceding documentation.

        Not surprisingly, some Russian experts are calling for the elaboration of a separate law on political financing.

        GRECO evaluation team in its evaluation report that was released at GRECO’s 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), discusses various aspects of political financing reform in Russia. The report mentions the urgent need to amend the existing political financing legislation but the CEC and other government bodies didn’t support this idea.

        However, the authorities do try to regulate public financing, seeing it as a means to, among other things, to create governmental control over the political parties. For instance, as of January 1, 2009, parties that win more than 3% of votes receive funding amounting to 20 rubles ($ 0.6) per vote-received per year, instead of the RUB 5 ($ 0,14) they received previously (prior to that, it was RUB 0,5 ($ 0,014). In conjunction with this support for “stronger” parties, an additional financial burden was laid upon their weaker counterparts: all parties that receive less than 3% of the vote must reimburse the costs incurred for the airtime provided at no cost for campaign ads and the free advertising space in the newspapers. This regulation contributed in no small part to the decision of five parties that participated in the 2007 elections to disband within one year.

        The OSCE recommended in 2004 that this regulation be revoked. While the authorities did remove this provision, they replaced it with a new regulation, under which a party that receives less than 3% of the vote automatically loses its entitlement to free broadcasting time and advertising space. In the 2011 legislative elections, Yabloko and the party “Patriots of Russia” fall under that provision. “Right Cause”, as a new party, was entitled to free broadcast time and advertising space.

        The maximum permissible expenditure from election campaign budgets, the campaign financing “cap”, has been raised. In 2007, under new amendment to the law on political parties, the limit for the party’s central campaign budget was RUB 400 million ($11 428 570) and that for the “consolidated” budget, i.e. the total sum of the maximums for the central and regional campaign budgets, was RUB 1,818 billion ($ 51 942 857).

        On December 24, 2010 according to new amendments to the law on political parties the campaign financing “cap” for elections has been raised again. The limit for the party’s central campaign budget was set for RUB 700 million rubles ($20 mln) and RUB 15 million ($ 428 571) for an independent candidate.

        Citizens can donate up to RUB 490000 ($14 000), legal bodies – to RUB 24,5 mln ($ 700 000). The limits of regional branches of political parties were also raised – from RUB 6 mln to 30 mln ($ 171 429 to 857 143) (depending on the population size) in 2007, to RUB 15 mln to 55 mln ($ 428 571 to 571 429). Thus, the total amount a political party can spend on a legislative campaign was raised to RUB 3,405 billion ($ 97 285 714), making for an 87% increase.

        According to June 28, 2012 amendments to the Federal law “On political parties”, political parties, established prior to April 4, 2012, not later that April 1, 2015 have to submit their financial reports over years 2013-2014 (i.e. not annually but one in three years). The political parties, established after April 4, 2012, have to submit their financial reports from the year of their establishment till January 1, 2015.

        In November 2013 the government approved amendments to the law on political parties prepared by Ministry of Justice. According to these amendments, the limit for party dues was set for RUB 4,3 mln ($ 122 857). Prior to that, there was no limit. If a political party gets annually over RUB 60 mln ($ 1 714 286) in direct public funding or its expenditures exceed RUB 60 mln, a mandatory audit is established. A limit on loans to political parties was also set – RUB 21 mln from citizens ($ 6000 000) and RUB 216 mln from legal entities ($ 6 171 429). Besides that, a 2.5 raise (from RUB 20 to 50) per vote of direct public funding to political parties was introduced.

        On June 14, 2014 the President Putin introduced to the State Duma amendments to the law on political parties that deal with on political financing. It introduces sanction on violations of electoral legislation making punishable illegal funding of political parties (parties will be fined).

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001, available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/.

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002, available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        “Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation Transparency of Party Funding”, adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

        From CEC – a 27-page document “Money and Elections” that contains analysis of Russian legislation and political parties’ financial information (covering years 2007-2010), available at http://cikrf.ru/banners/duma2011/finance/moneyelection.doc

        “State Financing of the Political Parties as a Method of the Electoral Targeting”, an article by Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, published in April 2013 at “Humanities, social-economic and social sciences” magazine, available at http://www.online-science.ru/m/products/politicks-nauki/gid415/pg0/).

        “Who funds political parties in Russia” by Mr Andrei Antonov, posted on August 24, 2010, available at http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2010/8/24/ktofinansiruetpartiivrossii/

        “Russian Legislation on Elections to the State Duma” by Dr Arkadiy Lyubarev, a leading expert for the GOLOS association, Moscow, published at Russian analytical digest No. 106, 21 December 2011, available at http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/RAD-106.pdf

        “The Limits of Managing Russia’s Party System” by Alexander Kynev, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, published at Russian analytical digest No. 106, 21 December 2011, available at http://www.css.ethz.ch/publications/pdfs/RAD-106.pdf

        June 14, 2014 presidential amendments on political financing, available at http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(Spravka)?OpenAgent&RN=545825-6&02

        “Ot partiinykh kass otsekayut nebalonadezhnykh”, an article by Maxim Ivanov and Sergei Goryashko, Kommersant dialy, June 16, 2014, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2492157

        “Financial support of parties’ activities in the context of political reform”, an article by Stanislav Vavilov, Deputy Chairman of Central Election Commission, at Journal about Elections, issue 6, 2012, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/about/library/journal/2012/n6/Vavilov.pdf

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 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

        In law, third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) do not report any itemized contributions received and expenditures connected to electoral activities to an oversight authority and their financial information is not necessarily made publicly available.

        Only political parties and independent candidates are required by law to submit financial reports to the Central Election Commission (CEC). These financial reports are to contain data on donors and recipients, including third-party actors. If the latter are commercial or non-commercial organizations, they have to submit all their financial data to the Ministry of Justice and the Federal Tax Service (Art. 34 of the Federal Law "On politiical parties). This data is not publicly available and it's impossible to check if it's submitted in a an itemized format.

        However, both Ministry of Justice and Federal Tax Service upon a request of the CEC can audit any organization connected to some electoral fund and its activities (Art. 34 of the Federal Law "On politiical parties).

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001, available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/.

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002, available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        “Ot partiinykh kass otsekayut neblagonadezhnykh”, an article by Maxim Ivanov and Sergei Goryashko, Kommersant daily, June 16, 2014, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2492157

        June 14, 2014 presidential amendments on political financing, available at http://asozd2.duma.gov.ru/main.nsf/(Spravka)?OpenAgent&RN=545825-6&02

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

      • 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

        In practice, third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) do not report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an electoral oversight authority.

        This is due to the fact that, according to the law, the responsibility to provide financial information to the Central Election Commission (CEC) lies only with political parties.

        The Russian authorities advocate a view that organizations supporting the principles of a political party, for example, youth and women’s associations, research foundations, etc., are independent economic entities, incorporated in the form of CSOs. They are placed under the obligation to submit their own accounting records and are not considered to be directly linked to political parties.

        Russian and international experts repeatedly voiced an opinion that the current legal situation in Russia may be used to direct funds through associations/foundations in order to support a candidate or a list of candidates outside the restrictions applicable to electoral subjects and political parties. Although such associations/foundations may not be under the control of candidates or parties in a strict sense, they can clearly be closely aligned to them for the purpose of supporting their campaigns, thus creating opportunities to circumvent transparency rules governing general party funding and election campaign financing.

        The “Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation Transparency of Party Funding”, adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), mentions urgent need to amend the existing political financing legislation but the CEC and other bodies didn’t support this idea.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. An October 2012 article in Forbes Russia described findings that showed the beneficial owners of CSOs linked to funding major political parties to be closely linked with the government or state-owned corporations.

        In June 2014, President Vladimir Putin proposed an amendment to Art. 34 of the Federal Law "On political parties" which would toughen the existing rules regarding the financial reporting of itemized contributions from third-party actors, thus limiting the contributions that can be made by associations and foundations. The responsibility for reporting this information will remain with political parties, as is the case now. However, political experts have noted that this amendment will have a direct affect on the funding of major political parties, but is being introduced in order to limit funding for opposition movements and parties.

        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

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        Secondary source: “Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation Transparency of Party Funding”, adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

        Reviewer's sources: "Kak finansiruutsya rossiiskie vybor: issledovanie Forbes," Forbes.ru, October 11, 2012, http://www.forbes.ru/sobytiya/vlast/161122-kak-finansiruyutsya-rossiiskie-vybory-rassledovanie-forbes

        "Otkuda partii i politiki berut dengi?" Political Daily, May 8, 2014, http://politspb.su/%D0%BE%D1%82 Political Daily, %D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D1%82-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B8/

        "Politicheskim partiyam Rossii zapretyat prinimat pozhertvovaniya ot posrednikov," News.ru, June 16, 2014, http://www.newsru.com/russia/16jun2014/finance.html

        "Gosduma zapretit finansirovat partii po skheme Navalnogo," RBC.ru, June 16, 2014, http://top.rbc.ru/politics/16/06/2014/930237.shtml

      • 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

        In practice, journalists and citizens can’t easily access the financial information of third party actors, including the political spending of those actors in support of political parties and individual candidates. Such information is available only via party or candidate reports filed with the CEC.

        To provide an answer to this question, a certain research was conducted. First, websites of political parties were examined. Second, Financial reports of all four major political parties that managed to get their candidates elected to the State Duma in December 2011, as well as financial reports of the four main contenders at the presidential race in March 2012 were analyzed.

        Third-party actors among principal official financial supporters were selected and their websites (if existing) were examined with respect to their donations to the above mentioned political parties and individual candidates. The results demonstrated that political parties United Russia, Communist Party, LIberal Democratic Party and Just Russia do not list any information on financial support from third-party actors at their websites.

        The website of the ruling political party Edinaya Rossiay provides a list of public associations it cooperates with (http://er.ru/party/public_associations/) with contact information about these associations but no information on their financial (or any other) support to United Russia. Websites of these associations either do not exist any more (for example, the website of Russian agricultural movement) or do not mention any contributions to United Russia electoral funds or participation in it political campaigns.

        The same data is lacking at Just Russia website – no information about contributions to the party (and its financial situation in general), no information about support from its followers – legal entities (the list is available here http://www.spravedlivo.ru/1_81.html), no corresponding data on the website of these entities. The Communist Party website doesn’t contain information even on its supporters. LIberal Democratic Party has a list of its regional branches on its website (http://LIberal Democratic Party.ru/party/regions/) but nothing on the party’s financial situation.

        A list of contributions and expenditures of political parties during legislative December 2011 election is available at the CEC website at PDF format. Major donors of LIberal Democratic Party are all commercial enterprises. The same goes with Communist Party, with one exception. Just Russia named quite a lot of public associations among it donors.

        The top contributor to United Russia 2011 legislative campaign was United Russia political party supporting fund (donated RUB 24 mln or $685 714). It doesn’t have a website. RUB 10 mln to 20 mln were contributed by regional supporting funds, from Volgograd to Kaluga. Most of these regional funds still exist, at least they have websites. However, there is no information on their financial activities. An attempt to reach one such fund by the phone number listed on “Contacts” page for information on its contribution to United Russia at State Duma 2011 campaign was rejected because this information is for authorities only and not open to general public.

        For example, the website of Bryansk regional supporting fund of United Russia has a page on donors but it’s empty (see http://fond-edinros32.ru/category/benefactors/). It should be noted that this supporting fund does provide reports on its activities in 2010-2013 that contain information on income and spending but this information is not itemized (see http://fond-edinros32.ru/category/reports/).

        There is information on some regional supporting funds on websites of regional branches of United Russia but nothing detailed (see, for example http://leningrad-reg.er.ru/Fondpoddergkipartii/, http://kirov.er.ru/party/Fond/).

        Volgograd regional branch of United Russia has a page on 2011 election but it’s empty (http://volgograd.er.ru/party/election/). The same goes with information on presidential 2012 election. The site also gives a list of supervisory-auditing commission of this branch but lists no data on the commission’s activities or reports (see http://volgograd.er.ru/party/KRK/).

        However, information on regional branches of United Russia is available but for a fee (see, for example, http://www.k-agent.ru/?mod=obj&id=874674, http://www.rusprofile.ru/id/3427925).

        The top contributors of Just Russia are “Initiative” political parties supporting fund and “Public consent” political parties supporting fund (RUB 24.5 mln or $700 000 each). “Initiative” specializes in book publishing and doesn’t have a site but there is plenty of information on it available for a fee (see for http://querycom.ru/company/0388715, http://comreport.ru/company/0687457, http://www.k-agent.ru/?mod=obj&id=4826729). The same goes with “Public consent” – book publishing, no website (see http://www.rusprofile.ru/id/1289457, http://www.k-agent.ru/?mod=obj&id=4826608, http://leningrad-reg.er.ru/Fondpoddergkipartii/). Absolutely the same story is with “Legal statehood” political parties supporting fund (RUB 14.5 mln or $414 286), “Public initiative” political parties supporting fund (RUB 10 mln or $ 285 714), “Socium” political parties supporting fund (RUB 9.5 mln or $ 271 429). They all seem to be legal entities especially created for providing political funding.

        All major contributors of LIberal Democratic Party are commercial companies; no third-party actors such as CSOs are listed.

        Communist Party named just one major contributor – Kursk regional public fund “For revival”. It is a public association that among its activities names trading (see http://kursk.rosfirm.ru/kurskij-regionalnyj-obschestvennyj-fond-za-vozrozhdenie-cc46-12150, http://exacom.ru/company/1526992.

        A list of contributions and expenditures of political parties during presidential 2012 election is available at the CEC website at PDF format.

        Vladimir Zhirinovsky of LIberal Democratic Party didn’t list any major donors; Gennadii Zyuganov of Communist Party named only commercial enterprises, Sergei Mironov of Just Russia used the same scheme, getting the money from a “Person” political parties supporting fund that has no website. Mikhail Prokhorov’s (independent) donors were commercial enterprises; finally, Vladimir Putin of United Russia had the same financial backing - United Russia political party supporting fund (donated RUB 40 mln or $ 1 142 857) that doesn’t have a website, RUB 25 mln to 10 mln were contributed by regional supporting funds, from Krasnoyarsk to Khakasiya.

        Summing up, limited information on third-party actors’ contributions to electoral campaigns 2011-2012 can be easily obtained via Central Election Commission website. Any detailed data is not available for free (some can be obtained at Unified State Register of Legal Entities for a moderate fee of $15-20). This information is collected by tax authorities. Journalists and citizens have to do with what can be downloaded from CEC website or spend additional time and money.

        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

        United Russia website http://er.ru or http://www.storonniki.info, Communist Party website http://Communist Party.ru, LIberal Democratic Party website http://LIberal Democratic Party.ru/, Just Russia website http://www.spravedlivo.ru/

        A list of contributions and expenditures of political parties during legislative December 2011 election, available at the CEC website http://cikrf.ru/banners/duma2011/finance/svedpostsredstv/svedpost_sredstv.pdf

        A list of contributions and expenditures of political parties during presidential 2012 election, available at the CEC website http://www.cikrf.ru/banners/prezident_2012/finance/sredstva.PDF

        “Predvybornye raskhody partii”, editorial, Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily, December 9, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/12/09/cik-dok.html

        “Zoloto partii”, an article by Ekaterina Mirnaya, Argumenty I fakty weekly, July 31, 2013, available at http://www.aif.ru/politics/russia/45589

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 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

        Third party-actors obtain contributions primarily from commercial enterprises and spend them in support of political parties and/or individual candidates.

        Political party fund associations (including their regional structures) comprised the most important type of third-party actor involved in the support of political parties and individual candidates. These funds are public associations (CSOs) and are specifically established to collect contributions for specific parties and candidates. These funds primarily rely on corporate sponsors, who are either interested in maintaining their privileged business positions or would like to improve their political connections, for their donations for their parties’ and candidates’ campaigns. Such contributions are perceived by experts as kickbacks for benefactors of a mutually-beneficial exchange between private sector and public authorities. Political party finance funds do not break laws in their provision of support funds for elections; however, as described by a Forbes Russia article (November 2012), they are likely to be used to anonymize the donors who fund the parties.

        In regions, donors are businesses that anticipate and build upon future contracts from local representatives of the political party they choose to support. Representatives of such businesses are members of regional supporting funds and quite often become deputies or high-level state officials on regional and federal level.

        Third-party actors are not hugely important in Russia because the ruling United Russia political party can pick up donors quite selectively and for the donors themselves, an opportunity to donate to its campaign fund is a mark of confidence and a special status in the eyes of elite.

        According to sources, public officials are using (and abusing) their mandate to maintain power via other means. And since the direct public funding goes to the winners of elections, they have sufficient funds to cover their activities between election cycles, which minimizes the usefulness of third party actors.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree -Civil society organizations, like Golos, Transparency International-Russia, and Liga Izbiratelei influence campaigns less through monetary contributions, but rather by reaching out to voters and raising awareness about instances of electoral and political finance violations. However, these CSOs have significantly less political clout and influence than the political party finance funds.

        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

        “Biznes na vyborakh”, an article by Sergei Guriev and Oleg Tsyvinski, Vedomosti daily, October 25, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/1401813/biznesnavyborah

        See also a report “Corruption in Procurement and Shadow Campaign Financing: Evidence from Russia” by Maxim Mironov (IE Business School) and Ekaterina Zhuravskaya (Paris School of Economics; New Economic School), October 2011, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1946806

        “Predvybornye raskhody partii”, editorial, Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily, December 9, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/12/09/cik-dok.html

        “Zoloto partii”, an article by Ekaterina Mirnaya, Argumenty I fakty weekly, July 31, 2013, available at http://www.aif.ru/politics/russia/45589

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "Kak finansiruutsya rossiiskie vybor: issledovanie Forbes," Forbes.ru, October 11, 2012, http://www.forbes.ru/sobytiya/vlast/161122-kak-finansiruyutsya-rossiiskie-vybory-rassledovanie-forbes

        "Otkuda partii i politiki berut dengi?" Political Daily, May 8, 2014, http://politspb.su/%D0%BE%D1%82 Political Daily, %D0%BA%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0-%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%83%D1%82-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%8C%D0%B3%D0%B8/

        "Politicheskim partiyam Rossii zapretyat prinimat pozhertvovaniya ot posrednikov," News.ru, June 16, 2014, http://www.newsru.com/russia/16jun2014/finance.html

        "Gosduma zapretit finansirovat partii po skheme Navalnogo," RBC.ru, June 16, 2014, http://top.rbc.ru/politics/16/06/2014/930237.shtml

        Reviewer's sources: Transparency International – Russia Declarator project, see more http://www.transparency.org.ru/deklaratcii/tcentr-ti-r-podal-zhalobu-v-tcik

        Liga Izbiratelei website http://ligaizbirateley.ru/

        “Lawmakers Demand Probe of Watchdog”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 01 December 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/lawmakers-demand-probe-of-watchdog/448989.html

        “Elections Watchdog Claims Harassment”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 30 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-watchdog-claims-harassment/448900.html

        “Assotsiatsiya v zashitu Golosa”, an article by Nataliya Gorodetskaya, Alla Barkhatova and Victor Khamraev, Kommersant daily, December 01, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1828016

  • expand button!

    Monitoring and Enforcement

    More about category
    composite
    55
    • 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

        In law, political finance information is monitored by an independent oversight authority – the Central Election Commission.

        The CEC's mandate is regulated by Federal Law “On Political Parties”, Federal Law “On elections of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation”, Federal Law “On elections of the President of the Russian Federation and Federal Law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation”, Federal Law “On guarantees of equality of parliamentary parties in the coverage of their activities by publicly accessible state TV and radio channels”.

        These laws stipulate that "Elections are prepared and conducted by the CEC, the election commissions of the federal subjects, the election commissions of municipal units, regional, territorial (rayon, city and other) and precinct election commissions. Both the CEC and the election commissions of the federal subjects are tasked with supervising the observance by participants in elections (hereafter “electoral subjects”) of the election campaign funding regulations. The decisions of a higher-level election commission adopted within the scope of its competence are binding on a lower-level election commission. Decisions made by election commissions can be appealed in court or a higher-level election commission" (GRECO 2012 Report).

        The CEC or its territorial units audit the quarterly financial income and expenditure reports The (quarterly) reports on income and expenditure of political parties. The CEC also audits the political parties' annual reports (Art. 21 and 23 of the Federal Law "On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation”), and can investigate complaints regarding political finance.

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/)

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        Federal Law No. 95-FZ “On guarantees of equality of parliamentary parties in the coverage of their activities by publicly accessible state TV and radio channels” passed on May 12, 2009 (available at http://base.garant.ru/195519/)

        Russian legislation on Central Election Commission, CEC website, http://cikrf.ru/about/activity/

        Secondary source: "Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation: Transparency of Party Funding. Theme II." March 20-23 212. http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

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

        In law, high-level appointments to the oversight authority are based on merit. However, such appointments are not made in a public appointment process.

        The Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation is a state body, as set out in Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation”. There are 15 members of the Commission, five of them appointed by the State Duma, another five by the Federation Council from candidates nominated by legislative and executive bodies of the government of subjects of the Russian Federation, and five appointed by the President of the Russian Federation. Article 21 of Federal Law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” sets out the appointment procedures for CEC's commissioners.

        According to the law, the chairman of the CEC must have a higher legal education or an academic degree in the field of law. Aspiring members of the CEC should be Juris Doctors, but this is not a mandatory condition.

        With regard to conflicts of interest, all civil servants, including members of CEC, should avoid all them, including political, personal, and familial conflicts, according to the national legislation (Federal Law #79 "On state civil service at Russian Federation").

        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

        List of members of Central Election Commission elected for 2011-2016, available at CEC website http://cikrf.ru/about/board/2011-2016.html

        Commission on conflict of interest compliance and official conduct and relevant Central Election Commission legislation, available at http://cikrf.ru/about/activity/commission/

        Information on time schedules of formation of regional election commissions for 2013 and CEC nominees for these commissions, dated December 10, 2013, available at http://cikrf.ru/banners/form_iksrf/

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002, available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/

        Conflict of interest, Federal law #79 “On state civil service at Russian Federation”, passed on July 27, 2004, available at http://base.garant.ru/12136354/3/

      • expand button!
        40
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent are high-level appointments to the oversight authority based on merit?More about indicator

        In practice, high-level appointments to the oversight authority is based on merit only to some extent. As the appointment process is not public, it's difficult to judge whether the most qualified candidates were appointed. In the case of the current CEC head, Mr Churov, some consternation exists as to whether he is qualified for his post.

        Yes, the Central Election Committee's staff largely consists of professional lawyers. According to the law, it is mandatory that the chairman has to have a higher legal education or an academic degree in the field of law. However, experts argue that most of the appointments are based on political loyalty and corporate solidarity.

        This political bias is supported by the way high-level members of CEC defended the results of the last federal elections, vehemently denying any claims of vote-rigging and general helpfulness towards the establishment.

        With regard to the situation on regional level, in practice, bodies of regional election commissions include representatives of all political parties represented in the State Duma. Since only one opposition party -- the Communist Party of the Russian Federation -- is more or less represented in the vast majority of Russian regions, delegates of United Russia (United Russia), the "party of power," outnumber all potential and existing opposition members, providing the needed decisions.

        The fact that most governors are presidential appointees makes it easier for the Kremlin to manipulate regional election commissions. Impartial in theory, they run local elections, and half their members are nominated by the governor. As the last federal elections demonstrated, governors on their own can guarantee the desired results, especially if a governors heads a local party list of United Russia.

        It should be noted that members of the Central Electoral Commission frequently and readily discuss the penalties for election rigging, but they never say that according to the law on guarantees of citizens' electoral rights (Art. 29), an electoral commission member may not be charged with a crime or even fined for election rigging or any other crime without the consent of the procurator general or the procurator of the Russian Federation subject.

        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

        “Sverdlovskim ministram razdali predvybornye zadaniya”, an article by Mariya Plyusnina, Kommersant daily, September 20, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1777092

        “Governor Accused of Interfering With Duma Vote”, an article by Natalya Krainova, the Moscow Times daily, 25 October 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/united-russia-official-buys-votes/446792.html

        “Edinuyu Rossiyu lovyat na byudzhetnikhah”, an article by Vsevolod Inyutin, Ruslan Nuriev and Maxim Ivanov, Kommersant daily, November 7, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1810518

        “Vladimir Churov potreboval zashitit’ prava chlenov izbirkomov”, an article by Nataliya Gorodetskaya, Maxim Ivanov and Evgeniya Sycheva, December 23, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1844127

        “Kak uvolit’ Churova”, editorial, Vedomosti daily, December 27, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/1463845/kakuvolitchurova

        “Nablyudateli OBSE i PASE raskritikovali vybory v Rossii”, NewsRu information portal, March 05, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/05mar2012/watchers.html

        “TsIK nazval loshnymi bolee 80% zhalob po povodu vyborov prezidenta”, an article from NewsRu information portal, May 11, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/11may2012/tzik.html

        “Tsentrizbirkom rotiruet kadry”, an article by Irina Nagornykh, Anastasiya Mit’kovskaya, Kommersant daily, July 26, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1987986

        Recruitment advertisement for various positions at Central Election Commission staff, posted March 20, 2014, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/kadry/vacancy/O_konkurse.html

        Announcement of result of recruitment for various positions at Central Election Commission staff, posted July 16, 2014, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/news/cec/2014/07/16/01.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

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

        In law, the independence of high-level appointees is guaranteed by law. Members of the CEC have the mandate to review cases and issue decisions. Their tenure is secured for a five-year period from their appointment. Their removal or any disciplinary actions against them are based on due process, though it is not carried out by a peer panel or an independent oversight body.

        In law, the CEC members have the authority to review cases and issue decisions (Art. 29 of Federal Law "On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation"). However, any serious grievances against political parties and individual candidates are conducted by court order.

        Members of the Central Election Commission are civil servants and as civil servants, their public activities, including security of tenure, are regulated by Federal law “On state civil service at Russian Federation”. All members of the CEC are elected for five years and can’t be arbitrarily removed or disciplined. According to the federal law on the guarantees of citizens' electoral rights (Art. 29), an electoral commission member may not be charged with a crime or even fined for election rigging or any other crime without the consent of the procurator general or the procurator of the component of the Russian Federation.

        Para. 6 of Art. 29 of Federal Law "On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation" sets out the conditions for dismissal of CEC members. The law does not specify that the process of dismissal as carried out by a peer panel or an independent oversight authority.

        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

        Central Election Commission Resolution ? 215/1449-5 “On commission of compliance with the requirements for civil servants’ conduct, clearing of conflict of interest of Central Election Commission staff”, dated September 02, 2010, available at http://cikrf.ru/law/decreeofcec/2010/09/02/Zp101449.html

        Decree of Central Election Commission Chairman ? 54 “On code of ethics and public conduct of civil servants of Central Election Commission staff”, dated March 18, 2011, available at http://cikrf.ru/about/activity/commission/regulations/predsed/rasp_54.html

        Federal law #79 “On state civil service at Russian Federation”, passed on July 27, 2004, available at http://base.garant.ru/12136354/

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002, available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/

      • expand button!
        42
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent is the independence of high-level appointees guaranteed?More about indicator

        In practice, the independence of high-level appointees to the CEC is not guaranteed--it is unclear that appointees are able to review cases and issue decisions without being subject to political intimidation.

        Vladimir Churov was elected the Chairman of Central Election Commission in 2007 for five years and reelected in 2011 for another five years. During these years, he successfully conducted the legislative 2007 and 2011 and presidential 2008 and 2012 elections and provided the ruling elite two terms in power. If he and his colleagues at CEC were not active enough in making sure the existing system will be preserved, they will be replaced as it happened with Mr Churov’s predecessors.

        Mr Churov on several occasions made it clear he is Mr Putin’s loyal supporter. In 2011-2012, he was called to resign by various political groups and leaders. However, this did not amount to anything due to Churov's continued support from above. All other members of CEC that went along Mr Churov’s line, kept their position. Others were replaced after their term was over.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Graeme Robertson (2012) describes the CEC as a “loyal, if still fairly technocratic, instrument… [where] loyalty to incumbents is guaranteed by the composition of the CEC.” For Churov to be appointed as the CEC chairman in 2007, Russian legislation concerning the CEC had to be amended to appoint him (Churov had no legal training, and the previous law required all CEC chairmen to hold a law decree). Prior to his appointment, Churov worked closely with Vladimir Putin, as well as members of his current administration. Churov was Putin’s classmate in St. Petersburg and the worked for him directly on the St. Petersburg municipal external relations committee. In 2007, when Churov was appointed, there was speculation that the CEC would assume a more explicitly political role. According to Kommersant (21 January 2007), one of the CEC members at the time – Elena Dubrovina – said that the change in legislation was made in order for a specific candidate to take up the position.

        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

        “Vladimir Churov potreboval zashitit’ prava chlenov izbirkomov”, an article by Nataliya Gorodetskaya, Maxim Ivanov and Evgeniya Sycheva, December 23, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1844127

        “Kak uvolit’ Churova”, editorial, Vedomosti daily, December 27, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/news/1463845/kakuvolitchurova

        “V Gosdumu vnesli postanovlenie o nedoverii Churovu, Lenta.ru information portal, January 24, 2012, available at http://lenta.ru/news/2012/01/24/magician/

        “Nablyudateli OBSE i PASE raskritikovali vybory v Rossii”, NewsRu information portal, March 05, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/05mar2012/watchers.html

        “TsIK nazval loshnymi bolee 80% zhalob po povodu vyborov prezidenta”, an article from NewsRu information portal, May 11, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/11may2012/tzik.html

        “Razve Putin mozhet byt’ ne prav?”, an interview with Mr Churov, Kommersant daily, April 9, 2007, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/757109

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: “The Politics of Protest in Hybrid Regimes: Managing Dissent in Post-Communist Russia”, Graeme Robertson (2010)

        “Russia's Central Election Commission becomes a security agency”, Sputnik News, March 28, 2007, http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20070328/62746679.html

        “Churov tipped as elections chief”, The Moscow Times, March 26, 2007, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/churov-tipped-as-elections-chief/198190.html

        “Tsentrizbirkom otkryt dlya opytnykh neyuristov”, Kommersant, January 20, 2007, http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/735390

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

        Decision-making in the oversight authority is performed in the following way.

        According to Federal Law "On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation", the Central election Commission (CEC) is an independent permanent body, consisting of 15 members. The President of the Russian Federation, the State Duma and the Federation Council each appoint five members of the Commission. The election commissions of the federal subjects have a similar composition (10 to 14 members), half of them appointed by a legislative body and the other half by the senior public official of the federal subject concerned.

        The CEC's and local election commissions' independence and impartiality have been questioned by academics and practioners in the field of electoral integrity (GRECO 2012 report). By default, the majority of the CEC is appointed by the authorities (the President and the national legislature where the ruling Edinaya Party political party dominates). As a result, just a few members of the CEC are nominated by the opposition (Communist Party, LIberal Democratic Party and Just Russia political parties). Their attempts to discuss unpopular issues are frequently rejected by other CEC members. In their 2012 report of the 2011 legislative elections, the OSCE noted the lack of independence of the CEC, specifically ascribing it to the procedures responsible for the composition of the commission.

        The CEC’s primary role is to monitor the process of electing deputies to the State Duma and presidents in Russia. During the election campaigns (federal and local), the CEC monitors donations to parties, the use of party funds and accounts used for election campaigns. It is also responsible for providing media outlets with relevant information about the election process. On election day, the CEC runs polling stations and monitors the voting process.

        Therefore, the CEC's responsibilities are to organize and monitor election campaigns and report violations.

        But the CEC does not have the power to prosecute offenders – any administrative or criminal penalties are imposed by a court of law. The CEC can recommend to withdraw a commercial placed with certain irregularities but all other cases are the responsibility of the legal system.

        A majority is required in all cases of reported violations, but there was one documented complaint when this procedure was overruled by Mr Churov, the Chairman of CEC. In November 2011, during the legislative election, national newspapers reported that a number of campaign ads by opposition parties have been banned on state television by order of the head of the Central Elections Commission, who has no authority to do so (Vedomosti daily on November 28, 2011, for example).

        According to these reports, Vladimir Churov's actions prompted a mutiny among the commission's working group, whose job is to review such videos, but which was only asked to do so after they were banned, the newspaper said.

        State-owned broadcaster VGTRK announced in mid-November 2011 that it was banning videos by Yabloko, Just Russia and the Liberal Democrats (all opposition political parties) following a letter from Churov, who said he suspected the ads promoted extremism and targeted other parties.

        But only police or prosecutors can ban videos, while the Central Elections Commission is only authorized to request that a review of a questionable campaign ad, according to the Communist Party's head lawyer, Vadim Solovyov, as cited by Vedomosti.

        Elections officials also only asked the working group — which consists of unspecified media figures and elections experts — to review the videos slated for a ban on November 24, after they were already de facto banned.

        In protest, members of the group refused to make any ruling on the videos, robbing the ban of any expert backing, Vedomosti reported. The then VGTRK deputy head Dmitry Kiselyov, who oversaw the videos' removal, and a spokeswoman for the Central Elections Commission, declined to comment.

        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

        “Churov reshil sam”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, November 28, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1436303/churovreshilsam

        “Electoral Mutiny in TV Ad Ban”, an article by Alexey Eremenko, the Moscow Times daily, 29 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/electoral-mutiny-in-tv-ad-ban/448802.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "RUSSIAN FEDERATION ELECTIONS TO THE STATE DUMA. 4 December 2011. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report". 12 January 2012. http://www.osce.org/odihr/86959?download=true

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        44
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent does the authority have sufficient capacity to monitor political finance regulations?More about indicator

        In practice, the authority has sufficient capacity to monitor political finance regulations. There is sufficient budget at Central Election Commission to collect and file incoming political finance reports. CEC can recognize when required reports are not submitted. There are sufficient numbers of qualified staff at CEC to review submitted reports for compliance with basic regulatory requirements. These reviews are not, however, intended to identify all violations or irregularities for further investigation.

        Since 2007, the CEC has started auditing political parties for the legality of their income and expenditure of funds. The CEC is charged with this task under the federal law on political parties. Previously, the CEC controlled party finances only in election periods, but from now on monitoring will be done on a permanent basis. Local election commissions control the financial activity of regional branches of the parties.

        According to the Art. 71 of Federal Law on Elections of Deputies of the State Duma, and Art. 65 of the Federal Law on Elections of the President of the Russian Federation, the auditing units within the CEC and the regional elections commissions are in charge of auditing the finances and expenditures of political parties during elections to the State Duma individual candidates during the presidential elections. In practice, such auditing is used only for opposition parties.

        Prior to legislative 2009 and presidential 2012 elections the CEC audited the political parties and individual candidates finances and noted that they are very careful both with revenues and spending to avoid any actions by the CEC. However, experts claim that the CEC audits are superficial and often lack in-depth checks.

        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

        "Govorit i nakazyvaet TsIK", an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily, October 24, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/10/24/registraciya.html

        “Predvybornaya nepravda”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, November 14, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/14/cik.html

        “Partii pomeryalis’ sponsorami”, an article by Irina Granik, Kommersant daily, November 19, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1820525

        “Osobo tsennyi kandidaty”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, April 9, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/04/09/otchet.html

        “Tsement edinorossov”, an article by Nataliya Kostenko and Liliya Biryukova, Vedomosti daily, June 14, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1847916/cement_edinorossov

        “Otchet pustykh koshelkov”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta daily, November 12, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/11/10/partii-site.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

      • expand button!
        45
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent does the authority conduct investigations or audits when necessary?More about indicator

        In practice, the authority conducts investigations or audits when necessary only for political reasons against opposition figures.

        The Central Elections Commission does not apply its powers to investigate political financing in an evenhanded manner. In practice, opposition candidates are audited more strictly than those from the ruling party.

        Interviewees aver that the CEC and its regional and local bodies are to ensure that nothing interferes with a state-supported candidate's/party's campaign, as well as to ensure that nothing will guarantee a rival candidate's/party's success. Therefore, any penalties are imposed only on the opposition parties.

        Four major political parties are now represented in the State Duma. They are all a part of the political map of Russia and the state uses other instruments to stop an unwanted candidate or a party from entering a political race prior an election campaign (mainly, via not registering). Monitoring the financing of political parties is not one of those instruments.

        After the legislative 2011 and presidential 2012 elections, the CEC stressed that all reports provided by political parties and individual candidates contained mistakes but since they were technical mistakes, they all were corrected by parties and candidates and the reports accepted.

        Also it is worth noting that there is limited information on the audit of the individual candidates' campaigns and that this information is not readily presented to the public.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The CEC conducts audits of political parties' quarterly and annual financial reports. Following the 2011 Duma elections, the CEC received 1,686 complaints of electoral violations, all of which the CEC claimed to have investigated (Lenta.ru, 4 February 2012). The article breaks down the violations into several categories but does not specify whether any of the complaints dealt with political campaign finance violations. However, the OSCE report on the December 2011 legislative elections suggests that the CEC classified the majority of the allegations of violations as "applications" (obrasheniya), failing to treat them as complaints and, thus, not following legal procedures which would entail investigating the allegation and providing a written response within five days.

        A review of the public record showed only investigations undertaken by the CEC in relation to the electoral violations, though the specific details were not given.

        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

        “Zhalobnaya imitatsiya”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, November 17, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1423894/zhalobnaya_imitaciya

        “Predvybornaya nepravda”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, November 14, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/14/cik.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        “Churov reshil sam”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, November 28, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1436303/churovreshilsam

        “Electoral Mutiny in TV Ad Ban”, an article by Alexey Eremenko, the Moscow Times daily, 29 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/electoral-mutiny-in-tv-ad-ban/448802.html

        “Vladimira Putina trebuyu otpravit’ v otpusk”, an article by Alezander Zhuravlev, Kommersant daily, January 11, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1848837

        “Stat’i Vladimira Putina sverili s bukvoi zakona”, an article by Nataliya Korchenkova, Kommersant daily, January 31, 2012, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1861920

        “Elections Commission Says Putin Articles Were Informational, Not Campaigning”, editorial, the Moscow Times daily, 01 February 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/elections-commission-says-putin-articles-were-informational-not-campaigning/452066.html

        “TsIK nazval loshnymi bolee 80% zhalob po povodu vyborov prezidenta”, an article from NewsRu information portal, May 11, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/11may2012/tzik.html

        “Churov s kollegami nashli 135 narushenii na prezidentskikh vyborakh”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 12, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/newsline/news/1731351/zryaudalilitroih

        “Zhalobnyi otchet”, an article by Vitali Petrov, Rossiskaya gazeta dialy, May 12, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/05/12/jalobi.html

        Dr Juli Nisnevich, «Electoral corruption in Russia. Political and legal review of federal electoral campaigns», Moscow, Liberal Mission publishing house, 2014, part. III, available at http://publications.hse.ru/books/127803474

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: "CEC Declares 90% of Elections Complaints Invalid," Lenta.ru, February 4, 2012. http://lenta.ru/news/2012/02/04/ninety/

      • expand button!
        46
        Score
        25
        In practice, to what extent does the authority publish the results of investigations or audits?More about indicator

        In practice, the authority rarely and selectively publishes the results of investigations or audits.

        It has to be noted that the Central Election Commission (CEC) does not have the power to prosecute offenders – any administrative or criminal penalties are imposed by a court of law. CEC can withdraw a commercial placed with certain irregularities but all other cases are the responsibility of the legal system. For example, in the late November 2011, State Duma campaign ads by opposition political parties such as Yabloko, Sparavedlivaya Rossiya and LIberal Democratic Party have been banned on state television by order of the head of the Central Elections Commission, who has no authority to do so, Vedomosti daily reported on November 28, 2011. There is a special CEC's working group, whose job is to review such videos, but which was only asked to do so after they were banned. State-owned broadcaster VGTRK announced that it was banning videos by Yabloko, A Just Russia and the Liberal Democrats following a letter from Churov, who said he suspected the ads promoted extremism and targeted other parties. But only police or prosecutors can ban a video, while all the Central Elections Commission is authorized to do is request that a questionable campaign ad be examined, said the Communist Party's head lawyer, Vadim Solovyov, in the interview to Vedomosti. Mr Churov didn’t explain his actions.

        However, after the legislative 2011 and presidential 2012 campaigns were over, a lot of incidents of electoral legislation violation were made known, mostly by the opposition, especially the facts of vote-rigging at polling stations. Mr Churov, the Chairman of the CEC, denied them as allegations (and fabrications by opposition). His position was supported by the State Prosecutor Office and Investigative Committee of the Ministry of Interior of Russia. Just a few of these cases were related with political finance (and not income and expenditures of the election funds).

        Only a small percentage of thousands of uncovered violations were admitted by the authorities, including the CEC. The later published a so-called Green Book that contained these violations but it was not what the CEC promised to make public. The opposition demanded the full disclosure of violations Mr Churov declared he has a list of. For example, on January 5, 2012 he stated that experts had examined over one hundred video clips from polling stations all over the country made on December 4, 2011 and found almost all of these stations had been subject to some form of tampering. He promised that the results of this expertise will be made available to the general public in the immediate future but it never happened.

        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

        “Zhalobnaya imitatsiya”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, November 17, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1423894/zhalobnaya_imitaciya

        “Predvybornaya nepravda”, an article by Konstantin Novikov, Rossiiskaya gazeta dialy, November 14, 2011, available at http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/14/cik.html

        “Churov reshil sam”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya and Nataliya Kostenko, Vedomosti daily, November 28, 2011, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/1436303/churovreshilsam

        “Electoral Mutiny in TV Ad Ban”, an article by Alexey Eremenko, the Moscow Times daily, 29 November 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/electoral-mutiny-in-tv-ad-ban/448802.html

        “Churov: Mnogie videoroliki o narusheniyakh na vyborakh byli smontirovany”, RIA Novosti national information portal, January 5, 2012, available at http://ria.ru/politics/20120105/533498416.html

        “Sledstvennyi Komitet: roliki s narusheniyami na vyborakh byli zakazom, oni rasprostranyalis’ iz SShA”, Gazeta.Ru information portal, February 4, 2012, available at http://m.gazeta.ru/news/lenta/2012/02/04/n_2191977.shtml

        “TsIK nazval loshnymi bolee 80% zhalob po povodu vyborov prezidenta”, an article from NewsRu information portal, May 11, 2012, available at http://www.newsru.com/russia/11may2012/tzik.html

        “Churov s kollegami nashli 135 narushenii na prezidentskikh vyborakh”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, January 12, 2012, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/newsline/news/1731351/zryaudalilitroih

        “Zhalobnyi otchet”, an article by Vitali Petrov, Rossiskaya gazeta dialy, May 12, 2012, available at http://www.rg.ru/2012/05/12/jalobi.html

        “Vybory ne dlya pokaza”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, March 11, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/9889931/vbrosynedlya_pokaza

        “Kremlin Rebuffs Report Questioning Duma Vote”, an article by Alexander Winning, The Moscow Times daily, 13 March 2013, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/kremlin-rebuffs-report-questioning-duma-vote/476891.html

        “Mertvye dushi online”, Novaya Gazeta bi-weekly, March 15, 2013, available at http://www.novayagazeta.ru/politics/57208.html

        Central Election Commission press-release on publication of Green Book on presidential campaign 2012, CEC website, November 9, 2012, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/news/cec/2012/11/09/zel_kniga.html

        Central Election Commission press-release on publication of Green Book on legislative campaign 2011, CEC website, November 9, 2012, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/news/cec/2012/01/25/sbornik.html

        Central Election Commission press-release on monitoring of political parties financial reports for 2011, CEC website, June 13, 2012, available at http://www.cikrf.ru/news/cec/2012/06/14/vavilov.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

    • 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

        In law, there are sanctions in response to political finance violations.

        A GRECO report from 2012 on these issues helpfully translates and summarizes notable violations and sanctions specified in the law, beginning on page 19 (see sources). Relevant violations and penalties defined in the laws include the following:

        • If a party does not submit its required financial statement to the CEC, the CEC may refer that party to the Ministry of Justice (or the relevant regional body). The Ministry can then issue a warning, and if the party continues to fail to comply within 2 months, it may be deregistered or liquidated by the Supreme Court (see articles 32, 39-45 of the law "On political parties"). Such penalties may also be imposed for the collection of illicit campaign funds, or for other violations of campaign financing regulations.

        • The Criminal Code (article 141) and the Code of Administrative Offences (5-17 to 5-20) also specify a number of criminal and administrative sanctions that can be imposed for violations of poltiical finance and electoral regulations. These include: "a fine of 100 000 to 300 000 RUB ($ 2857 to 8571) or of a sum equivalent to the salary or other income of the offender for a period of one to two years, or by community service of up to 180 hours, or by corrective labor of up to one year, or by up to one year’s imprisonment" for "large scale" financing violations (equivalent to more than 1/10 of the overall campaign spending limit) (GRECO 2012, pg 22).

        Similar violations/sanctions are specified in other legislation as well.

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

        Federal Law #51 “On Election of Deputies of the State Duma, Federal Legislature of the Russian Federation”, passed on May 18, 2005, available at http://base.consultant.ru/cons/cgi/online.cgi?req=doc;base=LAW;n=161255

        Federal Law #19 “On Presidential Elections in the Russian Federation”, passed on January 10, 2003 (available at http://base.garant.ru/185413/)

        “Ot partiinykh kass otsekayut neblagonadezhnykh”, an article by Maxim Ivanov and Sergei Goryashko, Kommersant daily, June 16, 2014, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2492157

        Secondary source: “Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation Transparency of Party Funding”, adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

      • expand button!
        48
        Score
        NO
        In law, the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions.More about indicator

        In law, the oversight authority (the CEC) does not have the power to impose sanctions, and it can't directly prosecute violators before the courts.

        The federal law “On political parties”, the Criminal Code, the Code on Administrative Offences and the federal law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” provide for several types of measures and sanctions on political parties, electoral subjects, authorized representatives for financial matters of electoral subjects and on contributors to electoral funds (natural or legal persons). The CEC is not empowered to apply any legal sanctions – all it can do is to pass information on political finance violations to Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Interior, General Prosecutor’s Office.

        According to the CEC officials, political finance violations contribute to a very limited number of electoral legislation violations. Concerning sanctions under federal law “On political parties”, the authorities state that violations of the party funding and transparency rules take the form of late submission of financial reports by regional party branches but that such irregularities are generally remedied by them after receipt of a written notice by the competent authorities.

        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

        Federal Law #95 “On Political Parties”, passed on July 11, 2001 (available at http://base.garant.ru/183523/).

        Federal Law No. 67-FZ “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation” passed on June 12, 2002 (available at http://base.garant.ru/184566/)

      • expand button!
        49
        Score
        75
        In practice, to what extent do offenders comply with sanctions imposed?More about indicator

        In practice, offenders usually comply with sanctions imposed without exceptions.

        The Central Election Commission (CEC) and other government bodies, such as the Ministry of Justice, responsible for enforcing political financing legislation are very selective with prosecuting political parties and individual candidates for violations of electoral laws. In the 2011-2012 electoral round, the majority of complaints (according to the OSCE) were registered against United Russia; most of these complaints were dismissed while claims against opposition parties were upheld. For instance, Just Russia, Communist Party and LIberal Democratic Party filed numerous complaints in the 2011 and 2012 elections against the final electoral outcomes, citing discrepancies and violations which were either instigated by or were in favor of United Russia. In the majority of such violations, United Russia was a beneficiary of votes which the opposition believed to be rightfully theirs. The complaints were filed against the electoral commissions, rather than the party itself, which (as these complaints were investigated by the CEC) was not entirely impartial and no sanctions were imposed on the commissions or United Russia. In one example, following the presidential election in 2012, LIberal Democratic Party sent a number of complaints (the exact number was not given) against violations across multiple jurisdictions that skewed the electoral outcome in United Russia’s favor (Lenta.ru 2012). Examples of violations included vote-buying, failure to have lists of registered votes present, or issues with the used electoral registers. In February 2012, Yabloko alleged that electoral commission officials across various electoral points falsified the results in United Russia’s favor. The CEC would later state that the results of both elections were just and without major violations.

        The CEC normally employs sanctions against parties before they have the opportunity to take part in the electoral campaign. This occurs at the registration stage, which requires numerous bureaucratic steps. The most often applied tactic is to find irregularities at the list of supporters endorsing election of a specific candidate-- that is very easily done. Thus any other steps are made unnecessary and the stage of auditing financial reports of election funds unachievable. That is exactly how the authorities acted during legislative 2011 and presidential 2012 election campaigns. For instance, Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky was excluded from the presidential race for submitting support signatures (137,000 in total) in scanned, rather than original document, form. Despite the fact that scanning copies of support registration documents is not prohibited by law, the CEC found these signatures invalid, effectively preventing Yavlinsky from competing in the presidential elections.

        The parties and candidates that belong to the establishment are allowed a certain amount of technical mistakes that are corrected without any serious consequences for the party in question. Such mistakes are admitted by the parties and candidates that eagerly comply with demands from the CEC and other official bodies. There are no repeat offenders among the political parties represented at the State Duma.

        Measures aimed at prosecuting political parties and individual candidates for violating political finance legislation started being applied after 2011-2012 federal election cycle. Once again, these measures are applied entirely against opposition figures.

        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

        “Opposition Party Denied Duma Run”, an article by Alexandra Odynova, the Moscow Times daily, 23 June 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/opposition-party-denied-duma-run/439356.html

        “Party Registration Criticism”, editorial, The Moscow Times daily, 24 June 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/party-registration-criticism/439442.html

        “Yabloko vyshlo na lidiruyushie positsii”, editorial, Kommersant daily, October 31, 2011, available at http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1807179

        “Yavlinsky Says Yabloko Is in the Right”, Nikolaus von Twickel, The Moscow Times daily, 31 January 2012, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/yavlinsky-says-yabloko-is-in-the-right/452038.html

        “Oshibka v numeratsii”, an article by Anastasiya Kornya, Vedomosti daily, May 14, 2013, available at http://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/news/11979581/oshibka_vnumeracii

        “Investigative Committee is making search with regard to case of Navalny’s electoral campaign financing’, ITAR-TASS national information portal, May 13, 2014, available at http://itar-tass.com/politika/1208409

        “Sledovateli ishut propavshie den’gi izbiratel’noi kampanii Naval’nogo”, an article by Nataliya Kozlova, Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily, May 26, 2014, available at http://www.rg.ru/2014/05/23/navalny-site-anons.html

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "LIberal Democratic Party pozhalovalos v TsIK na narusheniya na vybory", Sputnik News, June 3, 2012, http://lenta.ru/news/2012/03/06/LIberal Democratic Party/

        "Partiya 'Yabloko' trebuet privlech k otvetstvennosti figurantov 'spisok Churkova", NG.ru, June 2, 2012, http://www.ng.ru/politics/2012-02-06/2_yabloko.html

        "Communist Party i 'Just Russia' fiksiruut narusheniya na vyborakh v Lenoblasti", DP.ru, April 3, 2012, http://www.dp.ru/a/2012/03/04/Communist PartyiSpravedlivaja_Ross/

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

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

        Infringements of rules on political financing are subject to two distinct sanctioning regimes. The federal law “On political parties” provides for the (constitutional) liability of political parties for violations pertaining to their everyday financial activities. The federal law “On basic guarantees of electoral rights and the right to participate in referendums of citizens of the Russian Federation”, the special election laws, the Code of Administrative Offences and the Criminal Code establish constitutional (or electoral), administrative and criminal liability for infringements related specifically to the financing of election campaigns.

        According to various national and international experts, summed up at “Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation Transparency of Party Funding”, adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), there is an urgent need to improve the existing legislative framework.

        Firstly, there is no specific legislation exclusively regulating political finance. Sanctions can only be triggered by violations of the provisions of the federal law “On political parties”, of the Constitution and of the federal laws of the Russian Federation, which can be interpreted quite broadly. The CEC interpretations of what constitutes an “application” or a “complaint” have shown to be quite fluid during the 2011-2012 electoral round, initially citing no complaints being filed in relation to the State Duma elections the day after the elections, with that number increasing to 1,000 complaints a few days later (OSCE 2012). The OSCE claimed that it received copies of these complaints and they numbered significantly higher than the numbers stated by the CEC. By failing to classify applications as complaints, the CEC essentially reduced the number of cases that would have otherwise been investigated, obfuscating the transparency of the process and failing to provide the complainants with a timely remedy, as is required by existing law. As such, the loose application of the laws relating to political finance, scattered across different pieces of legislation, allows for a wide scope in interpreting the monitoring function of complaints, which skews the potential for effective enforcement.

        “Secondly, the field of application of the sanctions appears to be too narrow. Sanctions are only applicable in respect of specifically designated persons but not necessarily the actual perpetrators, such as, for example, party leaders, accountants, individual members who are exempt from liability in the case of manipulation of the party accounts.” (GRECO 2012)

        “Thirdly, the law provides for a limited and inflexible range of sanctions for violations, including non- or late submission of quarterly and annual consolidated financial reports. The sanctions comprise written notices and, following two such notices, a six-month suspension of activity and liquidation of a political party. This kind of sanction is probably too severe to be of any real use. Therefore, a broader range of sanctions would need to be introduced, particularly administrative fines, which are proportionate to the seriousness of the offences. The reduction or suspension of public funding (for instance, until shortcomings have been addressed) should be considered and registered in the law. Right now, even in the case of fraudulent operations, a political party can still receive financial support from the state.” (GRECO 2012)

        With the upper limit of 2 500 RUB ($71) for natural persons and 100 000 RUB ($2857) for legal persons, the existing administrative sanctions could not to be called sufficiently dissuasive.

        In respect of the supervising function of the Ministry of Justice, there is a risk of conflicting interests and political influence, since the Ministry of Justice, as part of the Government, cannot be entirely independent in this function.

        Finally, there is a clear need to further strengthen the independence and the impartiality of the election commissions that for many are a cutting hand of the authorities that are interested in staying in power.

        Thus, improvement of enforcement of political financing legislation is dual – technical and political. Only strong political will to make such enforcement truly effective can impose the needed changes. However, so far this will was applied at preserving the existing situation or amending it only slightly and insignificantly.

        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

        Evaluation Report on the Russian Federation Transparency of Party Funding”, adopted by GRECO at its 54th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 20-23 March 2012), available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/GrecoEval3(2011)6RussianFedtwo_EN.pdf

        Dr Oxana Morozova, Associate professor of public administration of Ryazan State University, specialist on political funding, phone interview, August 19, 2014

        A representative of Communist party of Russian Federation, the Moscow city regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 13, 2014

        A representative of Just Russia political party, the Moscow oblast regional branch on the condition of anonymity, interview, August 15, 2014

        Dr Alexander Kynev, political analyst, the head of Regional Programs at the Foundation for Information Policy Development, Moscow, phone interview, August 22, 2014

        "RUSSIAN FEDERATION ELECTIONS TO THE STATE DUMA. 4 December 2011. OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report". 12 January 2012. http://www.osce.org/odihr/86959?download=true

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

The Russian Federation is a federal semi-presidential republic with a bicameral parliament, known as the Federal Assembly. The Federation Council, the upper house, comprises 167 representatives, with two representatives from each of the Federation's constituent members (formally, the number should be 170 to reflect representation from 85 federal subjects). The two delegates for each federal constituent unit are subject to different election procedures. Representatives for the legislative component are members of the federal subject's legislature and are nominated by the chairman of their regional assembly. The legislative representatives are elected by a vote in their regional assembly. Federal Council delegates representing the executive function are appointed by governors of their federal region.

The State Duma, the lower house of parliament, is composed of 450 members who are elected on a party list proportional representation system. Seats in the Duma are divided among parties whose federal list of candidates obtains 7% of the national vote, provided that there at least two such lists and that these lists together receive more than 60% of the total vote (the threshold to entry will change to 6% from 2016). Additionally, lists that receive less than 7% but more than 6% of the national vote receive two seats, whereas parties with between 5% and 6% of the national vote will be rewarded with one seat in the Duma. The Prime Minister is the head of government, and he is selected from the leading party in the Duma. Parties manage the campaign finances of Duma candidates.

The President, the head of state, is elected by the people for a six year term. No more than two consecutive terms may be served. Presidential candidates typically fund and manage their own campaigns.

The most recent elections to the Duma were held in December of 2011. Four political parties secured seats in the Duma: United Russia secured 238 (49.3%) of the 450 seats, the Communist Party (KPRF) won 92 seats (19.19%), Just Russia took 64 (13.2%) seats, while LDPR won 56 (11.7%). The election was marred by allegations of electoral fraud.

The most recent presidential elections occurred in May of 2012. Five registered presidential candidates competed at the polls. Vladimir Putin, then Prime Minister representing the ruling United Russia, won the election with 63.6 of the vote. Gennady Zyuganov (KPRF) won 17.2%. Mikhail Prokhorov, an independent candidate secured 8% of the vote. Vladimir Zhirinovsky (LDPR) and Sergey Mironov (Just Russia) won 6.2% and 3.9% respectively.