Learn more

composite
46
46

Uruguay

In law
58
In practice
48

In Uruguay, both parties and candidates receive direct public funding, in law and in practice. No subsidies are granted for access to advertising during campaigns. There are some limits and restrictions on contributions, but campaign spending is not limited to a maximum amount. In practice, public funding tends to be the most important component of campaign financing. No documented cases of violations of contribution limits were found during the 2009 elections. The reporting of financial information is required before and after campaigns, and parties also have to submit detailed accounts of contributions and expenditure on an annual basis. In practice, filed reports are not always completely itemized, nor are they completely inclusive of all donors. At least some of the financial data submitted to the electoral authority is made available online, but formats and standards vary, which makes the information somewhat difficult to analyze and compare. Third party actors are increasingly prevalent in Uruguay, but their independent political activities are not regulated. The Electoral Court is charged with oversight of political finance. Its members, in practice, are not appointed on the basis of their merit, and their independence is not fully guaranteed. The body has neither conducted investigations nor imposed sanctions, and as a result, enforcement in Uruguay is somewhat toothless.

  • expand button!

    Direct and Indirect Public Funding

    More about category
    composite
    62
    • expand button!
      Direct Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        1
        Score
        YES
        In law, there is direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        The law 18.485 on "political parties" states in its second article: "The National State will contribute to cover the costs of operating political parties; those generated by their participation in national and provincial elections (paragraph 9 of Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic); in the primaries (paragraph 12 of Article 77 of the Constitution of the Republic); and, where applicable, will also help to cover the costs that may be incurred in participating candidates in a second run (balloting) (first paragraph of Article 151 of the Constitution of the Republic)."

        This paragraph affirms that in Uruguay funding is received by political parties, not by candidates, this goes for public or private funds. Note that the last line of the referred article maybe confusing since it mentions candidates and not parties. This is because during the balloting period people vote basically for one candidate or another, though even in these cases funds go to the parties that support the candidates. Public funding, therefore, is provided both to candidates and parties.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 2, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

        Constitution of the Republic, articles 77 and 151, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/constituciones/const004.htm

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

        Direct public funding for political parties electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism. The money is calculated in indexed units and depends of the quantity of votes a candidate received at the elections.

        Article 20: "The State's contribution to the expenses of the national election, will be the equivalent to the value of 87 IU (eighty-seven indexed units) in Uruguayan pesos, for each valid vote cast in favor of the candidates for President of the Republic , in the case of a balloting, the amount will be the equivalent to 10 IU (ten indexed units).

        For local elections, the value will be equivalent to 13 IU (thirteen indexed units) for each valid vote cast in favor of each of the candidates for City Mayor.

        In internal elections the State's contribution will reach the amount of 13 IU (thirteen indexed units) for each valid vote cast in favor of candidates."

        Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24 define the exact allocation mechanisms.

        Political parties recognized as such by the Electoral Court are those who can receive the funding. Political parties, by the law 18.485, are those which: Reunite and present to the EC "the signatures of at least 0.5 ‰ of the total habilitated persons to vote in the last national election, with their express manifestation of their commitment to the political party and its program."

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, articles 2, 20, 21, 23 and 24 http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

      • expand button!
        3
        Score
        100
        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 transparent, equitable and consistently applied. The information about electoral campaigns allocations is public and freely published through the website of the oversight body.

        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

        “Political parties will receive $31,2 millions for obtained votes”, Journal El País, June 2014, http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/partidos-politicos-recibiran-millones-votos.html

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 11th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        “Political financing in Uruguay”, Daniel Chasquetti, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2011, http://www.idea.int/publications/funding-of-parties-in-la/upload/inlay_FPP-uruguay.pdf

      • expand button!
        4
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent does the entity in charge of public funding make disbursement information publicly available?More about indicator

        Since the amount of public funding is a percentage of the quantity of votes received by each political party, once the official counting of votes is available, the calculation is easy to make.

        There is not an official publication of disbursement information, but media take this role, calculating those amounts and making it public through notes, etc. For instance, in the ongoing campaigns, the public funding for primaries were explained in a June 16th article that explained that $36.478 (currently 1.47 USD) was to be provided per valid vote in the primary, which tranlsated to a total of $14.9 million (600,808 USD) to the National Party, and $10.8 million (435,000 USD) for the Frente Amplio and 137,452 (5,542 USD) for the Colorado Party.

        However, the entity in charge of public funding does publish memos remembering the way in which those disbursements are made, according to the law, before the elections. This way, in practice, they inform how they fund parties.

        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

        Sandra Etcheverry, Ministry of the Electoral Court, 19th August 2014, Montevideo in person interview.

        “Political parties will receive $31,2 millions for obtained votes”, Journal El País, June 2014, http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/partidos-politicos-recibiran-millones-votos.html

        CIRCULAR N° 9299, Montevideo, 18 August 2014. https://www.dropbox.com/s/oddvip9huraqcrl/Uruguay-4-10644-414.pdf?dl=0

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

        The Constitution, in article 58, notes: "Public officials are in the service of the Nation and not of a political party. Any activity alien to their duties is prohibited and political propaganda on their part at their offices or during office hours, shall be considered unlawful. They may not organize groups for propaganda purposes by using the names of public agencies or any connection their positions may bear to membership in such organizations." It prohibits electioneering-related activities during work hours or inside public buildings, or using the name of public bodies for electioneering (e.g. candidates/parties cannot say that X public body supports Y political party). Article 58 also prohibits public officials using their authority and its power for electioneering related activities.

        Tania de Rosa, the director of an NGO that specializes in transparency, and also Alberto Perez Perez, an attorney and professor, both concur that Article 58 of focuses on activities, and not on the physical use of non-financial state resources. Decree 500 (see sources) provides some further details on how/when state properties may be used in election campaigns, but a full prohibition on the use of such resources does not exist in Uruguayan law. Indeed, as stated by María Victoria Teran, political finance expert, there are not any laws that explicitly state a prohibition on the use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates.


        Peer reviewer comment: Disagree. Suggests a score of 100. Although it is true that there is no law that states a clear prohibition, Article 58 of the Constitution regulates this aspect. Therefore, a ban is in place, as confirmed by Gustavo Silveira of the Ministry of the Electoral Court.

        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

        Constitution of the Republic, article 324, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/constituciones/const004.htm

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

        Ms. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        Decree 500, 1988, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/OtrosDocumentos/decreto500/decr500.htm

        Ms Tania de Rosa, attorney and Transparency expert, interviewed in January 2015.

        Alberto Perez Perez, professor and human rights expert, interviewed in January 2015.

        Reviewer's sources: Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview

      • expand button!
        6
        Score
        50
        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 terms of complaints, of experiences, these type of practices often take a logic of public denunciation, especially in times of political campaigning, but then do not go to courts.

        However, there are systematic abuses by exceeding the limit of permitted airtime in media. For example, announcing political acts as undercover spots. There were reports of these practices by some groups, but none of them went to courts.

        As a conclusion, there are no formal claims of this type, these complaints are used as a political tool during campaigns.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. There are clear examples of abuses of state administrative resources. Usually this takes the form of official publicity from ministries, state enterprises, or other government agencies. What they do is to advertise their successes in TV and radio spots which go in the same line as in political campaigns. In this way what the party in power does is to use state money to finance hidden propaganda of their achievements during government.

        These episodes have been publicly pointed out by all opposition political parties the last election campaign, although it is not a new phenomenon, and has often been seen in the past. Usually denunciations are made public during campaigns but do not follow formal litigations afterwards.

        The expert I interviewed recognizes that the amount of official publicity rises during electoral campaigns, although he does not want to judge those episodes as abuses, especially compared to other countries in Latin America where he considers the abuses as even more flagrant.

        This phenomenon repeats every election campaign and generates criticism not only from political parties but also media.

        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

        “Politicians go for the TV”, InfoyCom, July 2014, http://www.infoycom.org.uy/2014/07/politicos-jugados-la-tv/

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        "Financing of presidential lists for the national election of 2009", Fabiana Olivera and Fabián Giaccossa, 2010, http://www.fcs.edu.uy/archivos/Mesa49Giaccossa%20y%20Olivera.pdf

        Reviewer's sources: PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, December 4th 2014, phone interview.

        "Bordaberry criticized increased government advertising campaign", Leonardo Luzzi, El Observador. 29.05.2014. http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/279623/bordaberry-critico-aumento-de-la-publicidad-oficial-en-campana/

        "Lacalle Pou questioned spending on advertising by FA", Espectador.com. September 8, 2014. http://www.espectador.com/politica/299455/lacalle-pou-cuestiono-gastos-en-publicidad-oficial-de-fa

        "Mieres criticized the government for spending on advertising", Espectador.com. September 15, 2014. http://www.espectador.com/internacionales/299935/mieres-critico-a-gobierno-por-gastos-en-publicidad-oficial

        "Government responded to opposition by government advertising campaign", Subrayado. November 19, 2014. http://preproduction.subrayado.com.uy/Site/noticia/36978/gobierno-respondio-a-oposicion-por-publicidad-oficial-en-campana

      • expand button!
        7
        Score
        NO
        In law, political parties and individual candidates have free or subsidized access to equitable air time for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        There is no such access provided.

        Political parties and individual candidates used to have a determined free access to equitable air time for electoral campaigns. When the most recent bill on financing of political parties was in the Congress, this became a big issue and the lobbying from the Union of Broadcasters was very strong and was holding up the whole discussion process. In order to make the process go further, this issue was removed from the bill and finally approved without any article that deal with it.


        Peer Reviewer Comment: Agree. There is a bill schedule to be passed in December that among other aspects gives free access to air time for electoral campaigns according to the votes each party casts. The text is still under revision.

        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

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        "The "media law" and free electoral advertising", ObservaCom, July 2014, http://observacom.org/clipping/la-ley-de-medios-y-la-publicidad-electoral-gratuita/

        Reviewer's sources: "Frente creará cargos rentados para el control de ley de medios", Valeria Gil, El Pais. November 11, 2014. http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/frente-creara-cargos-rentados-control.html

      • 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

        Not applicable. There are no regulations requiring free or subsidized access to air time. The last experience that was for the internal election for presidential candidates on each party.

        On April for the last elections, (internal elections of 2014) representatives of the four parliamentary parties met with managers of the Union of Broadcasters (Andebu), to coordinate the provision of free air time on radio and television for presidential candidates and sectors. Andebu offered 180 minutes each for the four parties on the three private air channels in Montevideo. The agreement between parties and the Union, agreed on differential quantity of time, depending of the representation on the Congress. However, this was an agreement, which isn't expressed in a law.

        ANDEBU consented to give 180 minutes and were distributed inthe following way: Frente Amplio 72 minutes, Partido Nacional 52 minutes, Partido Colorado 45 minutes, Partido Independiente 11 minutes. The distribution of the quantity of minutes was reached through a negotiation between the political parties. This agreement was published on all media and by all parties.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. This agreement continued for the national election that took place on October 26th. All the parties with representatives at the Parliament got a space in primetime private TV. A total of 180 minutes divided prior agreement between the parts. Frente Amplio 72 minutes, Partido Nacional 52 minutes, Partido Colorado 45 minutes, Partido Independiente 11 minutes.

        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

        Fabian Werner, Edition Director at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        “Agreement reached for free space on TV”, Journal El País, April 2014, http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/acordaron-espacios-gratis-television.html

        "Constanza and Tabaré will have the same space for TV", Journal La República, May 2014, http://www.republica.com.uy/constanza-y-tabare-por-tv/

        Reviewer's sources: Broadcasters Union release: "National Elections 2014: Assignment of space and no charge for spreading message with political parties parliamentary representation", ANDEBU, Sept 24, 2014. http://www.andebu.org/employment-a-skills/184-elecciones-nacionales-2014.html

  • expand button!

    Contribution and Expenditure Restrictions

    More about category
    composite
    47
    • expand button!
      General Rules on Electoral Campaign Contributions
      More about category
      • expand button!
        9
        Score
        NO
        In law, cash contributions are banned.More about indicator

        The law does permit cash contributions.

        The law 18.485 states on its 31st article that "Donations received by the political parties and its internal sectors or lists of candidates for election campaigns, may not exceed for each and every donor, the amount of 300,000 IU (three hundred thousand indexed units) and must always be registered."

        The 31st article states that "Any contribution or contribution to the campaign of those prescribed by this Act must be deposited in bank account opened specifically for the financing of it."

        The value of the IU on the day of the election was $2850 (uruguayan pesos) (approximately 117 USD). See: http://www.ine.gub.uy/comunicados/ui/ui0514.pdf

        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

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, articles 31 and 32, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

      • expand button!
        10
        Score
        NO
        In law, there is a ban on anonymous contributions.More about indicator

        The law 18.485, article 45 (a) explicitly prohibits contributions or anonymous donations, except those not exceeding 4,000 IU (four thousand indexed units). In no case may the total amount of anonymous donations may exceed 15% (fifteen percent) of the total income declared in the annual accountability.

        The value of the IU on the day of the election was $2850 (uruguayan pesos) (approximately 117 USD). See: http://www.ine.gub.uy/comunicados/ui/ui0514.pdf

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 31 and 45 a), http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        The law 18.485 states that all in-kind donations must be reported to the oversight authority and requires when a donation of services or materials is provided, the estimated value must be provided as well. All donations received by the political parties must always be registered. This shall mean those where such are recorded accurately with the name and other identifying information of the donor. This means that there must be an accurate record of donations with the name and other identifying information of each donor.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 31, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        No such law exists

        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

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

    • 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

        The law 18.485 states that all donations received by the political parties, their internal sectors, or their lists of candidates for their election campaigns, may not exceed for each and every donor, the amount of 300,000 IU (three hundred thousand indexed units) and should always be nominative. This article does not differentiates between types of donors.

        The value of the IU on the day of the election was $2850 (uruguayan pesos) (approximately 117 USD). See: http://www.ine.gub.uy/comunicados/ui/ui0514.pdf

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 31, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        The law 18.485 states that all donations received by the political parties and candidates for their election campaigns, may not exceed for each and every donor, the amount of 300,000 IU (three hundred thousand indexed units) and should always be nominative. This article does not differentiate between types of donors.

        The value of the IU on the day of the election was $2850 (uruguayan pesos) (approximately 117 USD). See: http://www.ine.gub.uy/comunicados/ui/ui0514.pdf

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 31, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        Political parties or their domestic sectors or lists of candidates may not directly or indirectly accept contributions or donations from governments, foreign organizations or foundations. So, contributions from these foreign sources are explicitly banned. Foreign individuals have the same limits that apply to the domestic ones.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 31, 45 http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

        Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview

      • 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

        Third-party are banned to make contributions by law. These actors are specified in article 45: Concessionaires or companies awarded with public works; professional, trade union or labor associations of any kind; foundations; non-state public entities.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 45, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        There is one law, law 18.485, that set rules on political financing, both for the national and sub-national levels. However there are some some substantial differences for these two levels:

        • Public financing for sub-national level in smaller than the one for the national level.
        • Political parties do not necessarily have to declare their financing in the primaries

        The second point about declarations of financing in the primaries has been a political debate during the last primaries. Nonetheless, this has been more a campaigning debate, than a substantial one. Some parties promised that even if they weren't obliged to present that declaration, they would post it on their web pages. To date no party has publish their financial reports for primaries.

        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

        Daniel Carranza, Board of Directors at DATA (NGO working on access to information and open data), 21st August 2014, skypecall.

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview

        "On its way", Santiago Sanchez, La Diaria Journal, August 2014, http://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2014/7/encaminados/

        “Dispersion and legal loophole prevent the control of parties finances”, Journal El País, May 2014, http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/vacio-legal-impiden-controlar-finanzas.html

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

        The most important component of the financing of political campaigns is public funding, established by law, where money is given to the parties by vote cast in its favor.

        For representatives campaigns, another essential source are the individual contribution of the candidate to his own campaign. These are candidates who invest their own money or take loans to finance his campaign. This is explained by the small scale of this type of election where there is also almost no access to large donors in these constituencies. The same limits apply to such self-financing donations as to other contributions.

        Another significant component is the contribution of companies, especially large companies which tend to donate to all parties to a greater or lesser extent.

        There is another predominant component financing that is out of control, TV channels. They do this through differential rates of pricing per minute. Depending of each party, some channels will charge certain amounts to some parties and another price to different parties. You could say then that is a form of donation. This is not registered as a contribution because they're selling a service at a special price.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. After casting the final number of votes for the October 26th national election all of the parties involved are entitled to get a total of 23,5 million dollars divided accordingly to the votes obtained. For each vote casted parties received 87 indexed units (approximate value of each IU 100 dollars) In this way all of the parties get back what they have declare to invest in the campaign and even a bit more, because the total amount declare by all the parties reached 17 million dollars.

        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

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        "Financing of presidential lists for the national election of 2009", Fabiana Olivera and Fabián Giaccossa, 2010, http://www.fcs.edu.uy/archivos/Mesa49Giaccossa%20y%20Olivera.pdf

        ¿Quién paga?, Sudestada, June 2014, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/10913/-Quien-paga#/

        Reviewer's sources: "State parties will receive more money than they spent on campaign", El Observador, November 1, 2014. http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/291198/partidos-recibiran-del-estado-mas-dinero-del-que-gastaron-en-campana/

      • 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 seems not to be any relevant cases in this regard.

        However it should be noted that the oversight body does not have the bureaucratic capacity to exercise the control of contributions and expenses, so it ends up being just a check-up of form and not content of the statements of political parties. The type of sanctions that are usually applied are, for example, sanctions for the presentations of statement after the date expected by law, or because of omissions in the formats in which they must submit such statements.

        This situation where the control body hasn't the ability to make an analysis on the content of statements, could be covering irregular situations.

        Normally since there is no data on these situations, jounalists are not very enthusiastic on covering these type of situations. There is also the sense that Uruguay is a country with low levels of corruption, so editors aren't eager to invest on these type of research. On the other hand, organized civil society does not enter on the issue. The few organizations that do it, won´t receive any funds to research on the issue, since the country shows low levels of corruption.


        Peer Reviewer Comment: Agree. There has been no record of official denounces to the EC. It has to be taken into account that the law that regulates contributions to political parties dates from 2009; therefore only two national elections have taken place so far. That been said there has been some denounces raised by Sudestada (a website dedicated journalism) specifically for the 2009 election involving owners of a few enterprises that already had contracts with the State and violating the law supported the campaigns of all political parties. The law 18.485 establishes that all the companies that have contract with the state are banned from donating money to political parties and if they do it any way will not be taken into account for new contracts. But the law does not specifically cover the donations made by individuals even though those individual may be related to the companies. Therefore there is a void in the legal text that may have to be revised to avoid these types of stratagems.

        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

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        “Who controls the origin of money for campaigns?”, Daniel Chasquetti, Montevideo Portal, April 2014, http://columnistas.montevideo.com.uy/uc3006341.html

        “Political financing in Uruguay”, Daniel Chasquetti, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2011, http://www.idea.int/publications/funding-of-parties-in-la/upload/inlay_FPP-uruguay.pdf

        Reviewer's sources: "The business of electoral patrons", Sudestrada, August 15, 2014. http://www.sudestada.com.uy/articleId__f8bc97fa-2dda-4f02-b6d3-313424d8deab/10893/Detalle-de-Noticia

        "Political parties receive money from companies illegally", El Observador. November 9, 2014. http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/287512/partidos-politicos-reciben-dinero-de-empresas-de-forma-ilegal/

        "The financing of elections", Gonzalo Ramirez, El Pais. October 27, 2014. http://www.elpais.com.uy/economia-y-mercado/financiacion-elecciones-normativa-gonzalo-ramirez.html

        Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

  • expand button!

    Reporting and Public Disclosure

    More about category
    composite
    64
    • expand button!
      Reporting Requirements to the Oversight Entity
      More about category
      • expand button!
        21
        Score
        YES
        In law, political parties and individual candidates report itemized contributions and expenditures both during and outside electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        The law on financing of political parties compels all parties to present financial reports (that include the details of their respective candidates) on the following moments, and only these occasions:

        Article 51 and 52 - Annual report of political parties. This reports should be presented by parties regularly through the information on: inventory ledger, accounting book and book on contributions and donations. Within 120 days of the calendar year, parties must report detailed accounts of income and expenditure incurred during the year.

        Article 34 - "Within ninety (90) days after the election day, the campaign committee shall submit to the Electoral Court a rendering of the final accounts in which the income and expenses of the campaign will be specified as well as the origin of the funds used."

        Article 33 - "The campaign committee shall submit to the Electoral Court, thirty (30) days before the national election held an estimated campaign budget" along with details of donations recieved to date.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, articles 33, 34, 51, 52 and 53, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

      • expand button!
        22
        Score
        NO
        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

        Monthly reports are not required. The national law obliges campaign committees to to present financial information 30 days before the elections and 90 days after the election. There is no official election or campaign period timeframe defined in the law, meaning that the legal requirements regarding reporting frequency cannot be calculated.

        Article 34 - "Within ninety (90) days after the election day, the campaign committee shall submit to the Electoral Court a rendering of the final accounts in which the income and expenses of the campaign will be specified as well as the origin of the funds used."

        Article 33 - "The campaign committee shall submit to the Electoral Court, thirty (30) days before the national election held an estimated campaign budget" along with details of donations recieved to date.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, articles 33 and 34, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

      • 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

        By article 51 political parties are required to report their financial information. This information is contained in the following registry books: - Inventory book - Cash book and journal - Book on contributions and donations.

        Even if they must register this information on these books, article 51 is vague about how often they have to present the information to the oversight body, or whether it must simply be updated and availalbe. It states that "political parties make regular updates on the books, which must be authenticated by the Electoral Court".

        However, the law is clear on the submission of an annual report submitted to the Electoral Court - article 52 requires that within 120 days of the calendar year, parties must report detailed accounts of income and expenditure incurred during the year.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, articles 51 and 52, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        Political parties must present a report of an estimated budget, 30 days before the elections, with an estimation. 120 after the elections, parties must present an affidavit. The affidavits tend to have a reasonable amount of information, although the level of itemization may vary a lot depending on each party. However the information in not detailed enough for transforming it into actual data. During last election all the political parties presented their reports on time. However since the law does not provide any models on how to present the financial report, political parties do it their way.

        The biggest problem is not really the presentation of information, but the deficiencies in the controls about the accuracy or completeness of such information.


        Peer Reviewer Comment: Agree. The issue here is the variety on the type of info you may have inside the reports parties do present. Some of them have the complete itemized info while others may have part of that info and not the totality in terms of details. Therefore there are obstacles to present standardized reports on all the parties because the formats and contents of the reports may vary.

        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

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        ”Interview on electoral campaign financing to Daniel Chasquetti”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2947/?playlist=980

        ¿Quién paga?, Sudestada, June 2014, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/10913/-Quien-paga#/

        Reviewer's sources: Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo, phone interview.

      • expand button!
        25
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do financial reports by political parties and individual candidates include all types of contributions?More about indicator

        The information presented in not always complete. In law, it should be itemized, but this criterion is not always respected. In general terms, we could say that parties tend to include a substantial portion of the contributions. However, currently it is impossible to know if the parties include all contributions, as the oversight body does not have the technical capacity and human resources to control this. Not having audits that compare whether what is declared in accountabilities, actually corresponds to what is spent, there is no way to really know if all contributions are declared.

        Normally the detail you can find on the report responds to these fields: Date, name of the donor, concept, description, type of value, amount. There is no unique identifier number or address required, but there is usually no problem identifying the donor. Also, some donations are legally allowed to be provided and reported as anonymous (which can reach up to 4,000 IU, which computed to 11,400,000 Uruguayan pesos during the last election) (approximately 476,391 USD).

        A good example of the type of contributions that does not appear on official statements, is the practice of TV channels that charge different prices and therefore end up working as a grant. This does not go in the declarations as it is a payment for a service. This could somehow be a part of the contributions that TV channel do to political parties, but that are not reported because they are not defined as such by law.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A 0 score is earned where neither condition is met.

        Sources

        ”Interview on electoral campaign financing to Daniel Chasquetti”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2947/?playlist=980

        “Who controls the origin of money for campaigns?”, Daniel Chasquetti, Montevideo Portal, April 2014, http://columnistas.montevideo.com.uy/uc3006341.html

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

    • 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

        The law 18.485 on its 34th article states that political parties "Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the election, the campaign committee must submit to the Corte Electoral a presentation of the final accounts specifying revenues and expenditures used for the campaign, as well as the origin of the funds used."

        The article 36 says: "The rendering of accounts filed with the Corte Electoral shall be public and may be accessed by any person, without restriction. A summary of the accountability report will be also published in the Diario Oficial and in its website".

        As for annual party reports, Article 53 states, "The Electoral Court shall, after receipt, publish by the end of the day in the Official Journal and on an official website."

        These articles show that there is a rule that compels political parties to publish their accounts.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, Articles 34 and 36 http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

      • 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

        The law 18.485 that rules the financing of campaigns, states that political parties must present a report to the Corte Electoral (oversight entity) and it will be published in the website of that body. This in practice happens, political parties present those reports and they are publicly accessible to anyone. The information is available at the website of the EC in xls files.

        However, there are no rules about formats and about how much detail must figure on those reports. There are some reporting models, but those are not compulsory (they don't have the force of law) and they are not strictly respected, and different levels of detail are available from different parties.

        As a consequence, even if in practice parties present reports and they are published on the Corte Electoral website, they are not easy to access because of incomplete information or lack of detail.

        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

        Fabian Werner, Edition Director at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        ”Interview on electoral campaign financing to Daniel Chasquetti”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2947/?playlist=980

        “Who controls the origin of money for campaigns?”, Daniel Chasquetti, Montevideo Portal, April 2014, http://columnistas.montevideo.com.uy/uc3006341.html

        Electoral Commission Website; accessed on October 22, 2014. http://www.corteelectoral.gub.uy/gxpsites/page.aspx?3,26,339,O,S,0,

      • expand button!
        28
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent is financial information published in a standardized format?More about indicator

        By law there is not a standardized format in which political parties should present their reports. In practice though, the oversight body asks parties to present those reports in specific format of a table. This model is accessible for anyone.

        Nonetheless, not all the parties present their reports in those formats, they are incomplete and they not always are published as excel spreadsheets. Many times they are in PDFs or scans of tables.

        The lack of these type standards is visible in the work done by a little group of journalists that built the ¿Quién paga? platform to monitor the financing of political parties. They state that because of that, it took them several months to reconstruct the information. And even like this there is lots of information absent, because it doesn´t exist.

        For example, one can compare the report of the Frente Amplio with the one of the Partido Colorado. As seen the level of detail is very different from one to another, even if the total amunts are available on both of them, the detail of information you can have from one another is radically different.

        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

        Fabian Werner, journalist at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        ¿Quién paga" platform, Sudestada, Montevideo, June 2014, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/10913/-Quien-paga#/%23/

        TV Program "Poder pensar", interview on electoral campaign financing to Daniel Chasquetti, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2947/?playlist=980

        Electoral Commission Website; accessed on October 22, 2014. http://www.corteelectoral.gub.uy/gxpsites/page.aspx?3,26,339,O,S,0,

      • 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

        The use of political finance data by mainstream journalist media is still somewhat weak. This is due to incomplete information and hard to access documents because of the formats. There is also a cultural factor, journalists still consult their sources in all the different political parties, likewise with broadcasters.

        There is an example of a group of journalists that through months deconstructed the information available to make a database (open source) and a platform so any person can read the financial information in a much friendlier format. Quien paga is an independent and very new group of journalists; all of whom come from civil society groups. Even though, they acknowledge that the information is incomplete, because parties didn't fully comply with the proposed formats. Till the moment of closure of the research, no media outlet had yet used the information. It was basically used by people who wanted to know more about political financing. After the research there was a finding done by Quien Paga, and this time it was reproduced by other media outlets.

        Also many journalists confirm that political parties do not disclose all the information, especially about funds coming from privates and anonymous donations. This also causes that journalists doesn’t completely trust these public reports.

        However, there is more than one media outlet involved in these type of articles and investigations. It is true that sources for complete information are limited or incomplete but the journalist interest it is not. It certainly needs to mature the press media consistently has an interest on such matters.

        Below are links to news stories from different media outlets ( Newspaper El Observador, El Pais, and Subrayado) that use the official reports on expenditures received by the Electoral Court to inform the public on how political parties expend their money on publicity.

        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

        Fabian Werner, journalist at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        ¿Quién paga" platform, Sudestada, Montevideo, June 2014, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/10913/-Quien-paga#/%23/

        "Campaña costará a los candidatos unos 5 millones de dólares", Patricia Madrir, El Observador Montevideo, March 2014, http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/274007/campana-costara-a-los-candidatos-unos-5-millones-de-dolares/

        "The Financing of Elections," El Pais, October 27, 2014, http://www.elpais.com.uy/economia-y-mercado/financiacion-elecciones-normativa-gonzalo-ramirez.html

        "How much will candidates spend in the first round," Subraydo, October 20, 2014, http://www.subrayado.com.uy/Site/noticia/38305/cuanto-gastan-los-candidatos-en-la-primera-vuelta-electoral

        "¿Cómo se financia la política uruguaya?", Leonardo Haberkorn, El informante, April 2014, http://leonardohaberkorn.blogspot.com/2014/04/como-se-financia-la-politica-uruguaya.html

      • expand button!
        30
        Score
        100
        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 are no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws. This is mainly because te Electoral Court (oversight body) didn´t sanction any party for this type of practice.

        However this doesn't mean that there hasn't been any violations of the law, not major violations, but some violations in terms of how did financial reports were presented, etc. This is explained because of the limited capacities of the oversight body to accomplish with that objective, because of lack of budget and lack of enough specialized human resources to do it.

        In fact, now there is some concern of this situation and the need of improving the law is being reinforced because of this reason. Some people from the academy are trying to reinforce the point and some sectors of political parties are also talking about it.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. There are no violations officially reported. Only the reports of media (already mentioned in#20) that refer to 2009 financial campaign and mostly showed the void in the text of the law but were not necessary proven abuses.

        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

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        ”Interview on electoral campaign financing to Daniel Chasquetti”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2947/?playlist=980

        "On its way", Santiago Sanchez, La Diaria Journal, August 2014, http://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2014/7/encaminados/

      • expand button!
        31
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying?More about indicator

        Uruguay is a country where levels of corruption are the lowest in the Latin American region. This also works for elections and how there are no major cases of vote-buying cases. However, as other countries of the region, and because of the Uruguayan political regime, in the history country there have been clientelistic practices associated to campaigning. This has been changing in the last decades, but there isn't still enough controls to absolutely prevent these type of practices. But the public opinion is currently much stronger against them.

        Nonetheless, last year, during the election of internal lists for local governments there was a case where there were complaints on vote-buying. This case happened in the department of Maldonado, where the election of the candidates for a list of one of the political parties for the government of Maldonado, election that will happen next year. There were complaints about a candidate that have bought votes, and that also brought people from another department to vote on this department.

        In spite of these claims, there weren't denunciations or proofs and any formal action were taken. Further, this incident occurred in an internal procedure, not a national election, and thus cannot bear on the scoring for this indicator.

        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

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        "Reported vote buying in internal election of FA in Maldonado", Subrayado, October 2013, http://www.subrayado.com.uy/Site/noticia/28054/denuncian-compra-de-votos-en-eleccion-interna-del-fa-en-maldonado

        "List 738: reported votes-buying", El Pais Journal, October 2013, http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/lista-denuncian-compra-votos.html

        "Stitch", Brecha weekly newspaper, November 2013, http://brecha.com.uy/index.php/politica-uruguaya/2756-sutura

      • expand button!
        32
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do civil society organizations use political finance data?More about indicator

        Civil society, by and large, does use political financial data. In fact, one of the first examples is from this year's “Who pays?” initiative. Even with the initiative, which has processed the information that is publicly available, there are no examples of people using it to monitor political parties. Quien paga is a project developed by Sudestada, a recently formed group of experienced journalists. This project wanted to work with political party financial data, so they compiled the available data and worked with it to make it easily to read or to "consume". The data available is for the 2009 elections. For subnational election political parties don´t have to present financial reports, so there is still no data on 2014 elections.

        This may be explained because of the how the information is presented by political parties (there are no standards by law) that is not only incomplete sometimes, but the available information is also difficult to process. There is also the fact that there is the understanding that corruption is not a problem in the country, so this type of activity is not a priority for civil society. Also the availability of funds for organized civil society to use that information to monitor the political system is very reduced.

        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

        Fabian Werner, Edition Director at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        Daniel Carranza, Board of Directors at DATA (NGO working on access to information and open data), 21st August 2014, skypecall.

        ¿Quién paga?, Sudestada, June 2014, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/10913/-Quien-paga#/

        Anabel Cruz, Director at the Instituto de Comunicación y Desarrollo (NGO working on transparency a participation), 22th August, phonecall.

      • 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

        Until 2009 the system of party financing in Uruguay was characterized by the regulation of public financing through ad-hoc laws (Law 16.567, 17.157 law, law 17,787) that were approved for each election, and by the absolute permissiveness for political parties to accept private donations. This situation generated a debate during the last 15 years about the need to adopt a comprehensive normative on party financing, which granted a transparent process with clear rules. The current law was a result of discussion in the parliament to set clear rules on financing. The main changes were done on private financing and the sanctions.

        This involved a series of presentations of bills in Parliament, which weren´t passed. In fact, the law currently in force and which was passed in 2009, was introduced in 2007 which led to a long negotiation that significantly modified the content of the proposal. In fact they never agreed about the allocation of minutes in the air in the media because of the strong lobby of the media, so that chapter had to retire completely.

        Usually reforms in the system of funding of political parties are associated with public scandals or corruption. However, this is not the case. The discussion about the disturbing factors of the financing system, have come from the beliefs and preferences of party actors themselves. You could say that Uruguay slow reform process that ended with a new legal framework, without any in between phenomena of corruption, embezzlement, etc.

        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

        “Political financing in Uruguay”, Daniel Chasquetti, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2011, http://www.idea.int/publications/funding-of-parties-in-la/upload/inlay_FPP-uruguay.pdf

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        “Repeated spot”, InfoyCom, July 2014, http://www.infoycom.org.uy/2014/07/un-spot-repetido/

        Law Nº 16.567, 1994: http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=16567&Anchor=

        Law N° 17.157, 1999: http://uruguay.justia.com/nacionales/leyes/ley-17157-aug-20-1999/gdoc/

        Law N° 17.787, 2004: http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=17787&Anchor=

  • 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

        Third party actors are not required, in law, to report on their campaign activities to the electoral oversight authority. Third party actors are banned contributing directly to campaigns, but no further mention of their electoral participation is made in law.

        There is a very vague mention in reference to accountability processes in the law 17.163. From here we can conclude that third-party actors, acting as a legal entity, resolve how they do this within its statutes and the oversight entity is the Ministry of Education and Culture.

        "The Ministry of Education and Culture control and exercises as oversight body on foundations, to verify compliance with the laws, regulations and statutory provisions in force.

        Foundations keep their accounts on a consistent basis, which will result in each of the steps and the justification of all costs.

        The regulations establish how it will be controlled by the administrative authority control."

        The law states the the regulation of the law will detail how the control will be established, even how, this regulation hasn't been approved yet.

        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

        Law 17.163, "Norms for fundations and revoke disposition on decree 15.089", 1999, articles 24 and 25, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=17163&Anchor=

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 45, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

      • 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 law, third party actors are not required to report to the electoral authority regarding their campaign activities. They are banned from contributing directly to parties and candidates. However, in the last campaign, a union (SUNCA) paid for publicity and air time in order to advertise against a particular candidate (Luis Lacalle Pou of Partido Nacional). SUNCA favored the candidate from Frente Amplio. Further, PIT-CNT, which covers all unions, organized a strike in favor of the current governing party against the opposition. Opposition parties and the media publicly denounced these types of episodes, but it is a new phenomenon yet to be regulated. PIT-CNT and SUNCA filed no reports with the electoral authority.

        Indeed, the rules about how third-party actors must inform through financial reports are varied depending on the type of organization.

        Most NGOs and foundations have legal status as civil nonprofit association. The regulatory body is the National Direction of Registry. In practice, this public body does not make regular checks to civil associations and foundations nor is there a requirement for submitting annual reports or annual financial audits and detailed rendering of accounts.

        What has emerged within civil society organizations such as NGOs and foundations is the policy of self-regulation and voluntary accountability process, individually and collectively. In 2014 the Iniciativa Rendir Cuentas will present the fourth edition of accountability of civil society organizations in Uruguay. This self-regulatory initiative has been growing and adding organizations since 2010. 2014 116 organizations are accountable (in detail, based on a form that asks about projects, funding sources, resources, etc.). In 2010, 78 organizations had been; in 2011 had been 92 organizations; 102 organizations in 2012 and this year are 116 organizations (almost 50% more than in 2010) and civil associations are nonprofit, foundations and cooperatives.

        Other organizations such as unions or cooperatives have other regulatory regimes. The unions are recognized by the Ministry of Labour and cooperative by other regulators depending on the commercial sector they belong to. In these cases the financial reporting depends in part on who regulates, but mostly on the technical skills of the organizations to do this kind of reporting.

        In fact, this lack of clarity in the rules is seen by the civil society as a problem and a challenge that must be solved through the approval of a set of new laws. The concerns are about the need of a clear set of rules for civil society to accomplish with, within a public policy that considers capacity building to organizations, that many times doesn't have the accountability skills.

        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

        Anabel Cruz, Director at the Instituto de Comunicación y Desarrollo (NGO working on transparency a participation), 22th August, phone call.

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

        “National study on the national normative that regulates organization of civil society in Uruguay”, Javier Palummo, ANONG Uruguay, May 2014, http://www.anong.org.uy/images/pdf/marcojuridicongs13.pdf

        “Legal framework of NGOs "fragmented and incomplete" “, Portal 180, August 2014, http://www.180.com.uy/articulo/50473_Marco-legal-de-las-ONG-es-fragmentado-e-incompleto

      • 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

        Journalists and citizens can access the financial information that is included in the affidavit presented to the oversight body. However the law that regulates the financing of political parties prohibits contributions of some third-party actors as: unions, foundations, etc.

        With these limitations, the available information is public, on the web site of the oversight body for free but the formats are not open. However, no information on the electoral activities of third party actors, such as those undertaken by SUNCA or PIT-CNT during the last elections, is either directly reported to the oversight authority nor made publicly available.

        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

        Fabian Werner, Edition Director at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        Daniel Carranza, Board of Directors at DATA (NGO working on access to information and open data), 21st August 2014, skypecall.

        ¿Quién paga?, Sudestada, June 2014, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/10913/-Quien-paga#/

        Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview.

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

      • 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

        Many third-party actors are not entitled by law to contribute to political campaigns, such as unions, foundations, etc. Anyway, Uruguay being a small economy, none of these actors move resources that can make mean a real contribution to campaigns.

        In the format in which campaign financial reports that are presented currently, private contributions are associated with the names of individuals or companies. Therefore they really can´t if there is direct contribution from this sector to campaigns.

        However we could say that sometimes there are some practices that could work as indirect contributions to the campaigns. For example women's organizations that support women candidates, through the dissemination of messages in their campaign about the importance of women in politics.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. There is a new phenomenon that has being gaining impulse in the country, is the work of certain NGOs supposed working outside any political party influence which in fact tend to follow agendas related to laws and regulations specifically associated to certain divisions inside parties. These organizations generate lobbing and propaganda for their own specific interests, and many times people who integrate them are associated to specific political parties.

        One thing that I believe needs to be clear is that in Uruguay there is no limit on the maximum amount of money to spend on a campaign, the same way that there is no limit in terms of expenditures in publicity. Therefore there is no need to find organizations to perform hidden spending for the campaign.

        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

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        ¿Quién paga?, Sudestada, June 2014, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/10913/-Quien-paga#/

        Daniel Carranza, Board of Directors at DATA (NGO working on access to information and open data), 21st August 2014, skypecall.

        Reviewer's sources: "Bordaberry: Mujica came to the US to "find money for the campaign"", El Pais, 17 May 2014, http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/bordaberry-campana-mujica-estados-unidos.html

        Anne De Salvo , "The government uses public funds to the "No to the bottom"", El Diario, 8 Sept 2014, http://eldiario.com.uy/2014/09/08/el-gobierno-usa-recursos-publicos-favor-del-la-baja/

        "George Soros has already sent $ 200,000 to No to Low", El Pais, June 12, 2014, http://www.elpais.com.uy/informacion/george-soros-ya-envio-us.html

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

  • expand button!

    Monitoring and Enforcement

    More about category
    composite
    56
    • expand button!
      Monitoring Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        38
        Score
        YES
        In law, political finance information is monitored by an independent oversight authority.More about indicator

        The oversight body is the Electoral Court, which has the mandate to investigate in the case of violation to some of the dispositions of the law 18.485.

        Article 50: "Received the complaint or once initiated the procedures ex officio, the Electoral Court shall mandate the proceedings and investigations deemed as appropriate. For these purposes banking secrecy laid down in Article 25 of Decree-Law No. 15322 of September 15, 1982 is relieved for those involved in the complaint, and they apply to the Electoral Court Civil Judge for lifting it. Once banking secrecy is relieved, financial institutions shall provide all the information as required by the Electoral Court, relating to the bank accounts of political parties, domestic sectors, candidate lists, its leaders and individuals and businesses donors."


        Peer Reviewer Comment: Agree Although is true that the oversight body does not have a established unit dedicated to audit, in case of need it has the power to recruit the necessary personnel to deliver the investigation needed.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, article 48, 49 and 50, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

        Constitution of the Republic, Section 17, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/constituciones/const004.htm

        Reviewer's sources: Hernán Navascues, Former Vice President of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview

        Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

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

        In Uruguay the oversight authority is the Electoral Court, so the appointment of the authorities are those who rule the Court. There is a specific procedure for the appointment that depends of the Parliament.

        Article 324: "The Electoral Court shall consist of nine directors who will have double the number of alternates. Five members and their alternates shall be appointed by the General Assembly meeting by a two-thirds vote of all its members, must be citizens who, by their position in the political arena, are a guarantee of impartiality.

        The four remaining members, representatives of the Parties, shall be elected by the General Assembly, on double simultaneous vote under a system of proportional representation."

        Article 235: "The members of the Electoral Court may not be candidates for any office requiring election by the people, unless they resign and terminate their functions at least six months before the date of the election."

        Article 77(5) "The President of the Republic and members of the Electoral Court may not belong to political committees or clubs, nor hold directive positions in party organizations, nor take part in any way in political election propaganda."

        Because of the way in which these authorities are appointed, the mechanism doesn't forbid appointments involving conflicts of interest or other biases. However the special majorities tend to work as checks and balances to restraining party interests.

        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

        Constitution of the Republic, article 324, 325 and 77(5), http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/constituciones/const004.htm

      • expand button!
        40
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent are high-level appointments to the oversight authority based on merit?More about indicator

        In practice, the seats in the Electoral Court are not seen as best positions to aspire to. There is also the factor is that the authorities may not be candidates in the next election, and also the fact that the public body has a limited budget and its mandate is restricted.

        For these reasons, these positions are not the most desired, and tend to be negotiated between the political parties in Parliament, as currency. Elected officials tend to be professionals, with some relation to the parties and the representation on the direction of the Electoral Court tend to keep the same proportion in which the parties are represented in Congress.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree As noted, merit is not the key for the selection of this position. The base here is to maintain neutrality and political balance. However the appointees must have technical knowledge to perform the duties in charge. Among the member of the EC there are layers, sociologists, some are former representatives and technicians.

        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

        Fabian Werner, Edition Director at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        “Confirmed the nine ministers of the Electoral Court”, La Red 21, May 2010, http://www.lr21.com.uy/politica/411641-confirmados-los-nueve-ministros-de-la-corte-electoral

        Reviewer's sources: Hernán Navascues, Former Vice President of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

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

        The Electoral Court is an independent public body, that works independently from the Executive and its members are elected by the Parliament. Their decisions must be taken by majorities of its Ministers. Its main mandate are all electoral procedures and oversight of electoral all bodies. It can "ultimately decide on all appeals and claims that may arise, and be the judge of the elections of all elective offices, and of plebiscites and referendums" (article 322). There is no defined term.

        Article 93 - "The Chamber of Representatives has the exclusive rights of impeachment, before the Chamber of Senators, of the members of both Chambers, of the President and Vice President of the Republic, the Ministers of State, the members of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, the Court of Accounts, and of the Electoral Court, for violation of the Constitution or for other serious offenses, after taking cognizance of the matter upon petition by a party or by one of its members, and having decided that there are grounds for prosecution."


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree As the original researcher states the process to nominate, approve and terminate the mandate of the members of the EC is quite complex and balanced to guarantee their independence.

        The Constitution of the Republic does not specify a defined term for the ministers of the Electoral Court. Nevertheless they can not be simply voted out. The only way to remove a minister from his position before a new Electoral Court integration is by impeachment (juicio político). There is no record of impeachment at this institution in it whole history.

        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

        Constitution of the Republic, 1966, article 93, 322 and 326, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/constituciones/const004.htm

        Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, December 4th 2014, Montevideo phone interview.

        Hernán Navascues, Former Vice President of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview

        Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

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

        In practice their independence is not threatened by practices like operating with fear or favor from other branches of government, lack of security of tenure, or the possibility of being removed or disciplined arbitrarily.

        However, there are some practices that could risk the independence of these authorities. The fact that they are elected by the some political parties (in the Parliament) whose election must be observed. Also the fact that these appointees tend to be elected in the same proportion in which political parties are represented in the Parliament, and they tend to be very technical but also people of trust of these parties, could create the conditions for certain exchange of influence.

        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

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        Sandra Etcheverry, Ministry of the Electoral Court, 19th August 2014, Montevideo in person interview.

        Fabian Werner, Edition Director at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        Additional source: "Uruguay: The Electoral Court - A Fourth Branch of Government?, Sara Staino, http://www.idea.int/publications/emd/upload/EMDCSUruguay.pdf

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

        The oversight body decisions are taken by majority vote and shall have to be valid, at least by the affirmative vote of three of the five members appointed by the General Assembly, unless adopted by two-thirds vote of the total of its components.

        All the decisions taken by the oversight body must pass through the described process, and they result on resolutions of the Electoral Court. The process tends to take longer periods of time, but it guarantees negociated decisions, instead of personal opinions or preferences.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. There are no complaints about this decision making process being politicised.

        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

        "The Uruguayan electoral system", Carlos Alberto Urruty Navatta, Electoral Law Journal, https://www.tse.go.cr/revista/art/4/urruty_anexo.pdf

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        Sandra Etcheverry, Ministry of the Electoral Court, 19th August 2014, Montevideo in person interview.

        Reviewer's sources: Hernán Navascues, Former Vice President of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

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

        The oversight body doesn't have the sufficient capacity to monitor political finance regulations. When the law was approved there were not any budgets for the activity of monitoring or a group of technicians for this activity.

        Currently the work is done by the accounts department of the body (two persons) that are in charge of all the normal accountability of the organization. There are also some administrative staff that normally help with accountability activities, so they also help on the monitoring of campaign finances. There is not a technical group dedicated to the review of financial reports. The EC works with two accountants that do the everyday accounting jobs associated to the adinistration of a public body; they are asked for some help during the process of review of financial reports, but they are not given extra-hours, or training.

        The problem is that the body that already existed, was appointed to be the oversight body of political financing, but they weren't strengthened with budget or a group of trained technicians. This results is that currently the controls made are on the dates in which the reports are presented, etc. But there is not a real control on where the money comes from, how it is used, etc.

        Currently the process of revew of reports is focused on the form and not on the content. The persons in charge check if the reports are presented on time and if they show all the fields requested. However they still don´t have the bureaucratic capacity to check if the sources reported were actually true or if the amounts invested on advertisng do match with the amounts reported.

        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

        “Political Campaign Financing”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2946/?playlist=980

        ”Interview on electoral campaign financing to Daniel Chasquetti”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2947/?playlist=980

        “Who controls the origin of money for campaigns?”, Daniel Chasquetti, Montevideo Portal, April 2014, http://columnistas.montevideo.com.uy/uc3006341.html

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

        Sandra Etcheverry, Ministry of the Electoral Court, 19th August 2014, Montevideo in person interview.

      • expand button!
        45
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent does the authority conduct investigations or audits when necessary?More about indicator

        By law the oversight body does have the ability to conduct investigations, but not to conduct official audits. So in practice there are no audits. About investigations, there are still no cases of any made by the oversight body. This may be explained because there have been no violations of any type, but also by the institutional weakness of this body that lacks the bureaucracy and budget that enables any organizations to pursue such activities.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. As stated in #38, although is true that the oversight body does not have a established unit dedicated to audit, in case of need it has the power to recruit the necessary personnel to deliver the investigation needed. There were no investigations made in the most recent elections October 2014 or the previous one October 2009

        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

        “Political Campaign Financing”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2946/?playlist=980

        ”Interview on electoral campaign financing to Daniel Chasquetti”, TV Program "Poder pensar", Canal 20, May 2014, Montevideo, http://www.canal20.com.uy/videos/2947/?playlist=980

        “Who controls the origin of money for campaigns?”, Daniel Chasquetti, Montevideo Portal, April 2014, http://columnistas.montevideo.com.uy/uc3006341.html

        Ms. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        Reviewer's sources: Hernán Navascues, Former Vice President of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview Gustavo Silveira, Ministry of the Electoral Court, November 7th 2014, Montevideo phone interview PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, November 10th 2014, phone interview.

      • expand button!
        46
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent does the authority publish the results of investigations or audits?More about indicator

        There are no experiences of investigations or audits made by the oversight body, so none have been published.

        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

        Sandra Etcheverry, Ministry of the Electoral Court, 19th August 2014, Montevideo in person interview.

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        PhD Rafael Piñeiro, Coordinator of the Department of Graduate Studies in Social and Political Sciences, Universidad Católica del Uruguay, 13th August 2014, in person interview.

    • 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

        The law 18.485 that regulates the financing of political parties does consider a set of sanctions in case of violation of the rules:

        Article 46: "Political parties that contravene the provisions of the preceding section, shall be punished with a fine equal to twice the amount of the donation or contribution illegally accepted or unregistered spending.

        In case of violation of the provisions of Article 44 and paragraphs A), B), C), D) and G) of Article 45 of this law, donors will be fined an amount may be between two and ten times the value of the illegal donation received."

        When some types of practices are repeated by the parties, there is the possibility of harsher sanctions:

        Article 47: "Given the repeated unfulfillment by any political party of the provisions of this Act, the Electoral Court may order the suspension for up to one year of delivery of the items set out in Article 39 of this law." (Article 39 is annual public funding provided in monthly installments).

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, articles 46, 47 and 48, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        The law 18.485 clearly states the the power the oversight authority has to impose sanctions. In the article 49:

        "The sanctions referred to in this text shall be applied by the Electoral Court"

        About the prosecution of violators the article 50 says: "Received the complaint the Electoral Court shall proceed with the investigations and evidentiary proceedings deemed as more appropriate. Once relieved of bank secrecy, financial institutions must provide all the information that they are required by the Electoral Court, relating to the bank accounts of political parties, their leaders and donors." Once this process concludes plaintiffs and defendants have 10 days to ask for the extension of proceedings. If after the procedure, there is the need to, the records will be forwarded automatically to the Criminal Justice.

        Scoring Criteria

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

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

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Law 18.485, "Political parties", 2009, articles 27, 48, 49 and 50, http://www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18485&Anchor=

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

        There are still no examples of sanctions. This is in part explained because sometimes there are public statements but no official complaints made to the Electoral Court.

        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

        "Electoral advertising abounds during prohibition period, without any control or sanctions" , El Observador newspaper, April 2014, http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/277254/la-publicidad-electoral-abunda-en-la-veda-sin-control-y-sin-sanciones/

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        El negocio de los mecenas electorales, http://www.sudestada.com.uy/articleId__f8bc97fa-2dda-4f02-b6d3-313424d8deab/10981/Detalle-de-Investigacion

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

        Currently the formalities are being accomplished but there is not a real enforcement of the law in place. This is visible in the way political parties present their reports and the fact that there are not strong control processes going on. Since the EC does not have a technical staff that can actually review financial reviews, then it can´t detect non-compliance with the law. The EC is not being influenced by the public opinion.

        To improve the enforcment is necessary a technical staff with accountants and lawyers that can make investigations and audits and actually track the money and where it comes from. It would also be a great step to invite people to denounce situations they think are not legal and help them to present these reports, because sometimes this processes tend to be very technical.

        There is also the fact that political class is not really interested in further control in the finance of campaigns. Even in an electoral year it is not an issue in their agendas and programs. Meanwhile the enforcement of the policy is not an issue neither for citizens, since there is that common belief that there is not corruption in the country. Organized civil society and academy, don´t have as a priority on its agendas and do not count with funding to pursue research on the subject.

        To make more effective the policy is necessary a strengthening of the oversight body in its capacities of monitoring, sanction and audits. This type of processes will force political parties to make better and detailed financial reports. To make this, it would be ideal to count with standards.

        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

        Sandra Etcheverry, Ministry of the Electoral Court, 19th August 2014, Montevideo in person interview.

        MS. María Victoria Terán, Political Scientist, Researcher expert in political financing, 19th August 2014, Montevideo, in person interview.

        Daniel Carranza, Board of Directors at DATA (NGO working on access to information and open data), 21st August 2014, skypecall.

        Fabian Werner, Edition Director at Sudestada, and activist at CAinfo, 01st August, 2014, Montevideo, skypecall.

        Political financing in Uruguay”, Daniel Chasquetti, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2011, http://www.idea.int/publications/funding-of-parties-in-la/upload/inlay_FPP-uruguay.pdf

Uruguay has a bicameral legislature with a directly elected presidential executive. Uruguay has a multi-party system, with three dominant political parties.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of ninety-nine members elected directly by the people under a system of proportional representation in which take into account the votes cast for each party throughout the country. The Senate shall consist of thirty members, elected directly by the people, in one constituency.

The President and Vice President are elected together, directly by an absolute majority of voters. If the absolute majority is not obtained in the first round a second election takes place 30 days later only to determine the president and vice president. Each party may submit a nomination for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency.

The duration of the term in both cases is five years. Consecutive re-election is prohibited but the president may stand for election again after sitting out a term.

In Uruguay Presidential and Parliamentary national elections take place at the same time. The last national election took place on October the 26th, 2014. The prior elections took place in 2009. Voting in Uruguay is legally mandatory.