Association of European Election Officials

ANNEX ONE: POLITICAL FINANCE DISCLOSURE SYSTEMS IN COUNTRIES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN ELECTION OFFICIALS (ACEEEO)

ANNEX TWO: STEP-BY-STEP GUIDE TO USING THE MAP DATABASE

MONEY AND POLITICS (MAP) PROGRAM

Issues surrounding political finance emerge as a problem in many democracies. Scandals related to party and election campaign funds have gained widespread negative publicity over the last twenty-five years in Italy, France, Germany, the United States of America and in other advanced democracies. These scandals have led to public disappointment with democracy in some countries and to profound institutional reforms in others. Emerging democracies of Eastern Europe seem to confront the same challenge but the stakes are higher here as political democracy is only taking roots in this region.
Given the salience of the issue, the [Election Office of the Government of Hungary] has worked with the Association of Central and Eastern European Election Officials (ACEEEO) and the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) to develop the Money and Politics (MAP) Program in [Country]. The MAP Program is a global initiative by IFES to promote transparency and accountability of electoral processes worldwide. It grew out of the discussions at the 2001 ACEEEO Conference in Brijuni meeting of election officials where the need for further openness of electoral process was emphasized by election officials of the member election management bodies representing 18 countries. Prior to the meeting in Brijuni, the ACEEEO and IFES developed a study of legislative framework regulating campaign finance in each of the ACEEEO member countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It identified a number of commonalities in campaign finance regimes of the region and also highlighted some of the differences and problems. The report was presented at the election officials of the member election management bodies and has been published on the websites of IFES at www.ifes.org and the ACEEEO at www.aceeeo.org as well as in hard copy.
At the center of the MAP Program is a user-friendly, web-based database of political finding information. Housed and maintained by the ACEEEO, the MAP Database will serve a number of purposes. It will provide free and immediate access to information on political finance in Hungary. The Database will function as a rich source of information for media and analysts following the trends in financing of election campaigns. It will help inform voters about incomes and spending of different candidates/parties and make better informed decisions at the polls. It will also promote a more transparent conduct of election campaigns and contribute to improving the climate of political financial transactions.
Following the money trail through disclosure of political and, in some cases, personal accounts gives voters the opportunities to make educated electoral decisions that support and hold candidates and political parties accountable. The MAP Database is designed to provide a vehicle through which political parties, candidates, media, NGOs, and the voter can access and analyze information.
This guide provides a primer on money and politics, an overview of political finance disclosure in Hungary, how to analyze and make public available information, and how to access the user-friendly MAP Database at [www.website.country] to access this information.
The MAP Program has been made possible through a generous grant from US Agency for International Development (USAID).

MONEY AND POLITICS: A PRIMER

Money and competitive politics seem to be closely linked already since the days of ancient Greece and Rome when some wealthier political leaders did not shy away from what we today would consider an outright bribery of voters by means of giving out food to them in exchange for their votes. Clearly, such a practice is either legally or culturally prohibited in contemporary democracies. However, there is a number of other ways money can play a role (at times, a very important one) in the political process and power struggles nowadays.
What makes money a highly valuable resource for those involved in politics is its tremendously convertible character. While a direct exchange of a service for a service or a product has become nearly obsolete in modern economies, money easily mediates this process - almost any service or product can be obtained in exchange for money.
The importance of financial resources in politics has grown immensely over the last hundred years as these resources have been increasingly used to compensate for deficiencies in other areas of political competition.
Expansion of suffrage in the second half of 19th century and early 20th century contributed enormously to the emergence of mass parties. They became well-organized campaign machines enabling party leadership to mobilize large segments of their supporters at the polls. Moreover, these organizations were based on political commitment of the followers, which prevented large increases in campaign spending.
Yet, mass parties declined notably after World War II as party identification of the electorate started to weaken. This introduced a lengthy period of membership decline that seems to continue into the 21st century as well. The growing individualization and atomization of the society found its expression also in politics, calling for new approaches to campaigning and mobilization of voter support.
The spread of electronic mass media, particularly television, after World War II created new opportunities for political communication on a scale never seen before. Television turned out to be the most powerful tool of communication that effectively compensated for the weakening party organization, addressing voters directly and giving an impression of presence and participation. It was soon discovered, however, that an effective use of the new technologies required the erudition of communication experts. The latter swiftly took over campaign organization and professionalized it.
The advent of new means of political communication as well as professionalization of election campaigns dramatically increased the cost of politics. For example, approximately USD 425 million were spent on all kinds of political activities in the USA in 1972. In 1996, this figure rose to USD 4 billion.
A number of strategies were employed to counter this trend. Some countries introduced direct state subsidies to help major parties meet their expenses related to democratic competition. Others opted for overall campaign spending limits. Yet others restricted paid-for advertising in mass media. Although, none of these strategies have proven superior to others to assure a perfectly even playing field of competitive politics and to dramatically limit the importance of financial resources for political activities, knowing where the money comes from and where it goes allows voters to make better educated decisions at the polls. This can help hold candidates and parties accountable to the electorate.

POLITICAL FINANCE DISCLOSURE IN HUNGARY

WHY IS DISCLOSURE IMPORTANT?

Disclosure of information about income and/or spending by political parties and/or candidates (henceforth - disclosure) is nowadays seen as a critically important component of a democratic campaign and party finance regime. Disclosure may help accomplish a number of tasks.
Clearly, it contributes to an overall transparency of the electoral process. By means of disclosure, voters are offered an opportunity to learn more about political contenders in order to make an informed decision at the polls.
Secondly, requirements to disclose their sources of funding are likely to stimulate parties/candidates to raise and also spend their financial resources in ways that are acceptable to a majority of voters and do not provoke public disappointment.
Thirdly, disclosure emerges as an obstacle to corruption and trading in influence that are likely to be higher when the financial transactions between political parties and companies are hidden from the public eye. Therefore, disclosure can be seen as a way to strengthen the observance of the principle "one person, one vote".
Fourth, publicly available information about the flow of money of parties and/or candidates serves as a deterrent to a risk-free use of funds from illegal or criminal sources. Therefore, disclosure can serve the purpose of dignifying the politics.
Fifth, disclosure of financial records contributes to making politicians accountable to voters and/or donors for the formers' choices of spending the amounts raised.
Sixth, public disclosure can serve as a barrier to excessive campaign spending in particular countries/cultures where money in politics is viewed with suspicion or money is not seen as omnipotent.
The most typical mechanism of disclosure is employed inter alia in many European countries - political parties or candidates are required to submit declarations containing their income, spending or both. These declarations are offered for public scrutiny by publishing them in official media or making them available to commercial media. However, financial information about political parties or candidates can also be disclosed indirectly - as a consequence of political competition.
Despite the number of positive effects, disclosure may have its downside, particularly in fragile democracies or for contenders not belonging to political mainstream of the respective country. In societies where democracy is not deeply rooted, momentary winners may feel tempted to sanction supporters (particularly financial backers) of opposing political groups, which may lead to imbalanced, disenfranchising policies. Also, financial supporters of politically unusual groups may want to retain their privacy as backing of, say, a party advocating minority rights may seem unacceptable to a majority of a society. Here, disclosure of financial supporters would dramatically increase the cost of transaction discouraging the willingness to sponsor political groups of away-from-mainstream inclinations.
Other problems with disclosure concern the extent and accuracy of reports. While it may seem obvious that parties and candidates are required to disclose full information about their financial transactions, the reality lags behind this optimistic assumption. There are countries where only campaign income and spending has to be reported while routine expenses of political organizations remain hidden from the public eye. Other countries require reports about the finances of party headquarters while financial activities of local organizations are left unreported. In yet other countries, parties have to report about their local and central levels but transactions of affiliated units (women's organizations, youth organizations, political foundations etc.) remain unknown to the general public. Therefore, one needs to have a clear understanding of what kind of financial information is required to disclose before making generalizations about party and/or campaign finance in a particular country.
But even if one knows legal framework of disclosure, it does not guarantee that conclusions about relationship between money and politics in a given country are perfect. Political parties and/or individual candidates may be tempted to report a distorted picture of their finances to appropriate official bodies for a number of reasons.
One of the reasons for misreporting is receipt of larger donations in cash. In some cases, these may be so-called kickbacks from contracts with public institutions or other contributions of illegal character. Alternatively, some donors may be excessively concerned with preserving their privacy and require no reporting as a precondition for a contribution.
Another reason for misreporting stems from the requirement (introduced in some countries) to reveal not only finances of a party/candidate but also resources spent on their behalf. At times, the imprecision and incomplete reports may be intentional to hide financial supporters or to decrease the overall amount of money spent on election campaign.
One more reason is related to different "ceilings" set in the legislation. For example, a candidate may report lower than actual income in order to comply with the maximum amount of donations allowed by the legislation.
While disclosure is an important element of fair democratic process, its significance is reduced in the absence of effective enforcement mechanisms. Many scholars have admitted that an excellent legislative framework for political and/or campaign finance is not sufficient to provide a meaningful control over money in politics. Another highly important component is impartial and timely enforcement of the existing regulations that brings at least some kind of sanctions against violators.
The role of state agencies in the process of enforcement cannot be overestimated. It is these agencies that can apply administrative, financial or even criminal sanctions against those who have violated political finance legislation. As such, enforcement serves as a deterrent to illegal actions on behalf of political contenders. However, state agencies are frequently under the influence of the same parties or politicians whom they are supposed to control. That may render the enforcement useless as control may be carried out in a formal, superficial or belated manner.
However, an effective tool against this weakness would be a highly competitive party system where parties carefully monitor the activities of other contenders and state agencies and appeal to the public in the case of any irregularities or inadequate enforcement. Unfortunately, this seems to be unattainable in many democracies due to what is called by a number of scholars cartelization of party system. This phenomenon refers inter alia to a growing sense among major political parties that it is in their best interest to restrict mutual political competition in the name of their long-term survival.
Therefore, only non-governmental organizations and independent media emerge as most reliable watchdogs of party and campaign finance in many of the contemporary democracies. It is these actors that can best act in the interests of the society at large by monitoring election campaigns and scrutinizing financial records of parties/candidates. It is these actors that, in many cases, have sufficient public credibility to appeal to voters should any violations be discovered and achieve certain results (initiation of official investigation, loss of voter support by a candidate/party etc.).

WHAT ARE THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS IN HUNGARY?

The relevant laws regulating disclosure of party and campaign finance in Hungary are the following:

- 1989, Law no. XXXIII on the Operation and Financial Functioning of Political Parties (Party Law); amended by Law no. LXII, August 1990, and Law no. LXXXI, December 1992;
- 1989, Law no. XXXIV on Election of the Members of Parliament (Electoral Law); amended by Law no. C, 1997.

Also relevant for the purposes of party funding are the following acts: Law no. XLIV on the Parties' Headquarters, 1991, and Law no. XCIV and XCV on Party Properties, 2000.
According to the Party Law, as amended in 1992, political parties have to publish their reports only biannually. The State Audit Office is authorised to control the correctness of the disclosed data.
According to the law, the name of those domestic donors who have given more than 500,000 Ft and those foreign donors who have given more than 100,000 Ft must be published in the financial declaration. In practice, the names of most donors remain usually undisclosed because many donations are made via intermediaries, such as foundations.
Since the parties routinely modify their budget reports following the Audit Office's critical comments, it takes two or three years until the finally correct report is published. The difference between the original and the corrected financial reports are often considerable.
The Electoral Law of 1989 obliged the parties to publish their campaign budget in the press. The C/1997 law specified that the reports must be published in the National Gazette within 60 days after the parliamentary elections. (The law does not cover local elections.) The parties, or more precisely, the candidates, also must report to the Finance Ministry about the spending of the sum received for electoral campaign from the state within one month after the elections.
The structure of the party reports is established by law, which ensures a degree of uniformity in the submitted reports. Also, this facilitates systematic comparisons. As to the campaign finance reports, there are no uniform rules of reporting, and different electoral contestants provide differently structured information about their income and expenditure - the amount of detail varies dramatically.
A drawback of the currently existing laws is that they do not regulate clearly the disclosure of "support in kind". Possibly, some parties provide information on the cost of services provided freely by donors, but there are no systematic and clear rules regulating the matter.
The enforcement of the disclosure rules in Hungary is to an extent hampered by the considerable financial autonomy granted to political parties in financial matters. The organs of state administration are forbidden by law to follow the finance of parties. It is only the State Audit Office which inspects party finances, but this office is not a part of the executive - of the State Audit Office is elected by the parliament and reports to the parliament.
The Office biannually checks the bookkeeping of the parties. If, for some reason, it intends to conduct an extra scrutiny, it must warn the party one month prior to the investigation.
When the Auditing Office discovers illegal or anonymous donations or illegal economic activity, the party must pay the sum in question to the state budget, and the same sum will be deducted from the party's annual state allowance as a fine.
The prerogatives of the Audit Office are restricted. If it finds errors in the reports, it must ask the parties to publish a corrected version. There is no sanction for bad bookkeeping. The Office cannot investigate the identity of the donors. It has no means to conduct an investigation among the financial partners of the parties.
Yet, in cases of gross irregularities, the State Audit Office can ask the public prosecutor to launch an investigation.

WHERE DO I FIND THE INFORMATION?

The political finance disclosure provisions for Hungary require that the information is both presented to the Government and, more importantly, made available to the public. Reports are to be published in the Official Gazette. Information may be obtained from the Central Electoral Commission, and the State Audit Office. In addition to traditional methods as required by law, ACEEEO in co-operation with IFES has introduced user-friendly, web-based vehicle through which this information will be made available. By making this information more easily accessible, the ACEEEO hopes to increase the transparency and credibility of the electoral process.
The MAP Database provides you with a searchable mechanism to obtain political finance information about party finances, campaign finances of parties and candidates, information about the assets and liabilities of elected officials, where the money came from, and how it was spent. Access to the MAP Database at [www.website.country] is easy. User information is provided at the back of this manual. Searching the Database and finding information can be as basic or as detailed as you choose. You even have the option to download the MS Access Database directly to your computer to conduct more sophisticated cross-tabulations and develop graphs and charts.

HOW DO I ANALYZE THE INFORMATION?

Public disclosure of financial records of political parties and/or individual candidates enables a meaningful analysis of political and campaign finance. Information can be obtained relatively easily, and it should be structured identically for all parties in a given country.
However, one should not overestimate the reliability of the disclosed data for the reasons mentioned above. It can be assumed that the available data illustrate general trends but experience of several countries tells that in a number of cases the data do not reflect the actual situation perfectly.
There is a number of interesting issues to look at in the sphere of political and campaign finance. Moreover, these issues have not only academic but, even more, political importance, particularly in emerging democracies.
An obvious question to clarify is whether a political party and/or individual candidates comply with formal requirements of disclosure deadlines and income/spending ceilings as defined by the relevant legislation.
One of the debated issues concerns the growth of expenses in recent years. While it is not contested that the advent of new campaigning technologies and approaches raised the cost of politics in the second part of the 20th century, it is not clear to what extent this trend continues into the 21st century. Although the overall spending figures may be rising, one has to take into account the rate of inflation, price increases in the relevant sectors (for example, advertising), changes in the number of population/voters and other factors to arrive at meaningful and comparable conclusions.
While all parties strive for political power, they may employ different strategies and tools. If so, that is likely to be reflected in diverging spending patterns among different parties. Therefore, an inquiry into spending patterns during the same election campaign or even whole election cycle may shed some light on how different parties compete for power.
As information on political finance accumulates, one can draw conclusions about changes and trends of spending over time. For example, one may discover that some parties have switched from labor intensive door-to-door campaigning to capital-intensive campaign in the media between two elections.
Experience of advanced democracies indicates that there may be differences in income structure of different political parties. For example, leftist parties tend to obtain large donations from trade unions while right-wing parties tend to rely on sizeable private contributions. However, it is not clear what patterns are characteristic of democracies of Eastern Europe. Moreover, the income structure may change as a reaction to the political and economic environment or other factors, and it, then, needs to be monitored.
Some financial supporters may display a strong loyalty to a particular political organization. This can be explored by tracing contributions of particular donors over a number of years. One may also want to explore whether a particular donor constantly supports the same political parties over time.
Some political parties may have established close links to certain interest groups and may act as their lobbyists on the national political arena. Concentrated and sizeable contributions of a particular branch of the national economy to certain parties may provide a good clue to further exploring of relationship between parties and organized interests in the country.
In societies where economic resources are notably concentrated, parties may gain major financial support from a handful of donors. That, in turn, is likely to lead to a growing dependence of parties on those donors. Therefore, a diversity of funding sources and the number of donors are important factors for maintaining autonomous political organizations.
Many countries have prohibited foreign and/or anonymous donations as a source of funding for political parties. It is believed that such donations may undermine the sovereignty of the respective country or they may notably reduce the transparency of electoral process and politics in general. However, this prohibition is not universal and some countries do permit the aforementioned contributions. In that case, a notable share of foreign or anonymous donations in the budget of a party may cast a shadow of doubt over the recipient and its ability to act in the best interest of the people.
Another highly sensitive direction of inquiry concerns relationship between donors and kinds of decisions taken or supported by recipients of donations. It is exactly this kind of analysis that allows to make informed and substantiated conclusions about undue political influence of certain individuals or corporations.
Undue political influence can also be reflected in a correlation between donors and awards of public works' contracts. In that case, however, this influence may have grown into corrupt actions as it can be seen from not so ancient examples provided by democracy in Italy.
In some countries, governing parties tend to obtain considerably more financial resources than their counterparts in opposition. Therefore, differences in funding between governing and opposition parties deserve a particular attention as they would give additional information about the character of political competition in the respective country. This could also be compared to how concentrated is the flow of financial resources to political contenders. If, for example, a handful of parties collect 80-90% of all reported funding then it may be difficult to speak of an even playing field for all parties/candidates.
Last not least, one may want to assess the impact of funds spent on election results, i.e. whether there is any correlation between the spending of political parties and the number of seats obtained. This would not only characterize the effectiveness of campaign but also address one of the central issues - does money buy votes/election?

HOW DO I PRESENT MY FINDINGS TO THE PUBLIC?

Monitoring of political and campaign finance is an important activity to ensure free and fair elections and transparent and accountable democratic process in general. In many countries, NGOs and other actors of civil societies assume this complicated task. However, their efforts are likely to be less effective if they do not closely cooperate with media.
It is extremely important to increase public awareness of the issue of political finance and to communicate the results of monitoring campaigns and/or studies of publicly available information. It is an energetic appeal to voters via mass media that can give more weight to discovered irregularities or conclusions about trends in political funding.
NGOs can effectively detect and highlight funding patterns or suspicious correlations but these findings have to be communicated effectively to wider audiences to provoke public discussions or condemnation by voters that are likely to affect political fortune of parties/candidates involved. Frequently, it is the threat of loss of public support that precludes politicians from entering into dubious political or financial transactions.
However, the use of media to publicize information about campaign finance may backfire if certain conditions are not met. Despite the deficiencies of official reports described above, only their complete use can divert complaints about selectiveness of empirical information. Also, analysis has to be carried out in a balanced way looking at the same issues across all relevant political organizations and/or candidates. This non-partisan approach will only strengthen the credibility of conclusions and contribute to a wider circulation of the report.
NGOs in some countries where campaign expense monitoring projects have been carried out have faced a criticism of being biased because they have been vague on methodology of the project. It is of utmost importance for the success of the endeavor that indicators and criteria of evaluation are clearly defined and also made public prior to the launch of the project. A consistent application of these criteria throughout the project will only add to the seriousness of the effort even if the conclusions reached do not conform with political sympathies of funders and authors of the endeavor.
Better publicity for the monitoring efforts can be achieved by presenting the project results to media in an effective manner. It may be useful to split all information into two parts: main report and executive summary. The latter ought to be concise, analytical and easily readable. Visualization of the main trends and major problems/issues as reflected by the inquiry will help communicate the results of the research. A convenient way of disseminating the main report is publishing it on the internet, creating additional publicity for the institution, homepage of which is used for this purpose.
A different approach to publicizing the findings is a series of commentaries/analytical articles describing the problems detected, analyzing their likely causes and outlining possible solutions. These articles are perfectly suited for incorporating and drawing on the experience of other countries in the sphere of political and/or campaign finance. This approach would help maintain a steady interest of the general public in issues surrounding money in politics.

ANNEX ONE

POLITICAL FINANCE DISCLOSURE SYSTEMS IN COUNTRIES OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPEAN ELECTION OFFICIALS

Albania
All the donations should be declared and registered by the party. At the end of the year, a copy of this register (entries only) should be forwarded to the State Audit Department and a copy to the People's Assembly. The register should record the type of aid, its quantity and donor's details. The identity and signature of the donor are also recorded.
The State Audit Department is responsible for controlling received public funds and donations as well as other received aid.
A violation of the provided rules by public and private radio and television constitutes an administrative infraction and is punishable by a fine of between ALL 100,000 and 500,000 (USD 716 to USD 3,580). Other violations, where they do not constitute a criminal offence, are punishable by a fine of between ALL 1,000 and 2,500 (USD 7 and USD 18).

Armenia
The burden of disclosure is divided between parties and candidates, on the one hand, and banks holding pre-election fund accounts, on the other. The banks submit a notice to the relevant electoral commission on the contributions made to the pre-election funds of candidates and parties once in every three days. These banks are also entrusted with returning the amounts exceeding the donation ceiling. Candidates and parties submit a declaration to the electoral commissions that had registered them, on the use of the available amounts in their pre-election funds no later than one month after the elections. The Central Electoral Commission establishes the specimen of the declaration and the procedure for its submission. These declarations are published and audited by a special service set up by the Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission. Further, parties have to submit annual financial declarations, which are also published.

Belarus
The Election Code of Belarus does not set any disclosure requirements as all donations to candidates must be channeled through a single state-operated election fund.
The Central Election Commission is entrusted with the task of enforcing campaign regulations. If information about potential violations is brought to the attention of the CEC or local election commissions, the respective commission may ask other state institutions to investigate these cases further. Upon receipt of the verification, the CEC may issue a warning or declare the registration of the violator null and void.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Election Law prescribes as an obligation of political parties to submit a financial report at the time of submission of Application for Certification (for participation in elections). In addition, within 30 days of the publishing of the electoral results, the parties must submit a supplementary financial report for the period the day of certification to the verification of the election results. These reports should include the following information about all incomes and expenses before and after elections:

Individual candidates are required to submit a Financial Disclosure Form to the Election Commission. Personal property statements should include information for the candidate, as well as information about close family relatives - spouse, children and dependants. To be reported are the current revenues and sources of revenues received in Bosnia and Herzegovina within the previous year; all assets including case, bank accounts, shares, promissory notes, bonds, real estate, personal property, tenancy rights and other assets in excess of 5,000 KM. Loans and debts are to be reported as well. The property statements must be made public by the Election Commission.
Sanctions for failure to abide by the rules on disclosing campaign finance details were prescribed by the Election Appeals Sub-Commission (EASC). The EASC was entitled to impose disciplinary measures and/or fines on all individuals, candidates, political parties, coalitions, list of independent candidates, or bodies for breaches of certain provisions. The EASC could also impose sanctions such as reprimands and other measures.

Bulgaria
The Central Electoral Commission (CEC) is entrusted with the duty to supervise the implementation of the electoral legislation. The decision-making procedure for parliamentary elections is by two-thirds majority. The decisions have binding character for the parties contestants, and the national media. Under the 1991 electoral law, (principles of which were preserved in 1994, 1997, and 2001) the CEC was supposed to be appointed by the president, after "consultations with the representatives of the political parties".
There are no special provisions on disclosure of expenditure and contributions in the electoral law. Depending on the seats in the legislature won by the parties in the elections, the parties have to either return part of the public support or receive additional funds. As mentioned above, many parties failing to secure parliamentary representation did not return the public subsidy: there was no special enforcement mechanism against such a failure. Furthermore, there was no sanction, envisaged by the electoral law, for violation of the expenditure limits. Since there were no special disclosure rules, the Law relied on the reporting mechanism from the Law on Political Parties.
For the period 1991-2001, the only existing reporting provision was in the Law on Political Parties, according to which the parties had to report their income and expenditure within two months after general elections. The 2001 Electoral Law obliged the parties, the coalitions and the committees to hand in their reports to the State Audit Office within one month after the elections.

Croatia
The law requires that parties declare their intended expenditures and sources of income prior to elections but does not require a full financial declaration after the elections. The law on political parties defines a number of financial sanctions against disclosure violations. However, it is not clear, which state institution is responsible for enforcing these requirements.

Georgia
The Central Election Commission is the central enforcing agency of regulations pertaining to campaign finance. For example, it is the responsibility of the CEC to control the observance of air-time provision regulations.
Victor parties and candidates are obliged to submit a preliminary financial report within 8 days from the election day. These reports are checked by the Chamber of Control of Georgia. However, this does not relieve them from submitting a full financial report to the Central Election Commission within 2 months from the day the official election results are announced. These reports are also verified by the Chamber of Control and the CEC. While these reports are not published officially, the information is open for everybody who is interested in it.
Election subjects who do not submit a report on the election campaign fund, are banned from the right to take part in elections, including the relevant next elections.

Latvia
Since 1995, all registered political parties have to submit annual financial declarations to the Ministry of Justice and the State Revenue Service, containing detailed information about the amount and the sources of income as well as aggregate data on spending. These declarations are freely accessible after publishing them in the official gazette "Latvijas Vestnesis". Failure to submit a declaration on time may result in disbanding the party following a court order.
The Ministry of Justice is the foremost institution entrusted with enforcing party financial regulations. The National Council of TV and Radio supervises allocation of free air-time on public radio and TV and also observance of laws regulating pre-election campaign in the media.

Lithuania
According to the current legislation, all resources (gifts and donations in cash) shall be registered in gift lists indicating the name and address of the supporter. Ten days before the election, political parties and candidates are required to file with the Central Electoral Committee reports concerning the funds received and their utilization. They also have to submit the list of all financial supporters.
Twenty-five days after the announcement of final election results, final reports concerning sources of funds and their utilization is to be filed. Relevant documents justifying all income and spending shall be attached. If a party fails to file the report about the latest election it will be required to pay a double deposit to submit candidates for registration in the next election.
The reports are supposed to be reviewed by the State Tax Inspectorate, which issues its conclusions. Then the Central Electoral Committee publishes the final reports, lists of sponsors and conclusions of the Tax Inspectorate in press and on the Internet.

Macedonia
The law on political parties requires that the political parties keep records of their income and expenditure, and rules that the sources of funding of the parties must be made public. Disclosed must be the type, the amount, and the source of funding. As envisaged by the party law, control over the reporting procedure is exercised by the state financial control organs.
The most severe sanction envisaged by the Law on Political Parties is a fine amounting to two average monthly salaries for the financially responsible person of a political party, who fails to produce evidence relating to donations received by public enterprises and organizations.

Moldova
The burden of reporting is placed largely on commercial banks that have opened election accounts. It is the banks that inform CEC about contributions to the electoral accounts of candidates and parties within 24 hours. According to this procedure, not the parties and contestants, but the banks are responsible to provide information for the financial standing of the contestants in the election. The contestants, however, could be asked by the banks about the sources of their income, if they are (somehow) not evident or clear from the wire-transfer.
The candidates present financial reports to the CEC every week. Reports include income and expenditure. CEC announces the reports periodically'.
Within a month after the elections, the financial reports of the candidates and parties must be published in the press. Other sources of funding not declared in the electoral account' are prohibited.
The Supreme Judicial Chamber (Supreme Court) is empowered to cancel the registration of a candidate in cases of violations of the rules relating to the use of non-declared funds or contributions from foreign donors. The SC should decide on the case within five days, but not later than the day of elections.

Poland
Current regulations require that party, independent parliamentary candidates and presidential candidates' accounts be reported (in case of political parties on an annual basis). After the Parliamentary Elections, a committee submits to the National Electoral Commission, within 3 months following the polling day a report, later called "election report", on receipts, disbursements and financial liabilities of the committee, including bank loans and specifying conditions set forth by the lending institution, along with a written opinion of a competent auditor concerning the report. Then, the National Electoral Commission appoints an auditor; the cost of preparing a report is covered by the State Budget. The National Electoral Commission also publishes election reports of election committees in the Official Gazette within a month following the submission of the report.
The regulations concerning the disclosure of private contributions are a common feature to parliamentary and presidential elections in Poland. The National Election Commission facilitates the access to the list of contributions made by individuals for the benefit of an election committee of a coalition or to the election committee of the voters. However, in Poland no disclosure is required for political donors.

Romania
The list of persons who had donated sums amounting to more than 10 minimum wages has to be published in the Official Gazette no later than the 31st of March of the following year. But this important regulation has proved to be insufficient, as there is no specific control of this norm. In addition, a party does not have to report contributions as long as the total amount of contributions (from all sources) does not exceed 20% of the state subsidy in a year.
A system of authorized financial agent, registered with the Ministry of Economy and Finance was introduced in 1992. Both parties and independent candidates should have their financial agents. The receipt of funding that is not authorized by the agent is a "petty offence", according to the law, bringing a sanction between ROL 15,000 and ROL 45,000 (USD 1 and USD 3).

Russia
There are two ways of controlling political finance: (1) disclosure, and (2) legal enforcement; these are not mutually exclusive. Legal enforcement involves creating a system through which cash flow in politics is directly controlled. The system generally operates in a restrictive and negative way, i.e. it limits political donations in both quantitative and qualitative ways. Disclosure of political donors and reporting on political funds provides the necessary information to allow control over political money to be regulated by public opinion.
A presidential candidate, parliamentary candidate, an electoral association and electoral bloc are required to open a special electoral account with branches of the Savings Bank of the Russian Federation. A presidential candidate, parliamentary candidate, an electoral association and electoral bloc have to keep all records of the money contributed to and spent from their electoral funds. Moreover, presidential candidates, parliamentary candidates, electoral associations, electoral blocs should file financial reports with appropriate election commissions within the following periods: