Information about Elections, Political Parties and Candidates

Access to election-related information is widely considered to be essential to the integrity of electoral processes in the democratic world. A comprehensive survey of relevant laws and regulations, carried out in 2003 by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), found that, out of the 111 established and emerging democracies surveyed, sixty countries required political parties and/or their donors to disclose campaign contributions and other sources of income. These included, at the time, at least twenty-seven member states of the Council of Europe (not all members were included in the study). Fifty-three of the surveyed countries required disclosure of political party expenditure. With a few exceptions, the information disclosed by the parties, usually to a specialized government agency, can be freely accessed by the general public.[1] In some of these countries, the RTI law can be used to access this information; in other countries, election laws regulate these issues.

Disclosure of party finances, including campaign spending and contributions, serves the important goals of protecting the integrity of the electoral process and enabling voters to make informed choices on election day on the basis of the broadest possible information, including as to the parties and candidates’ sources of funding. To further these goals and promote good practices in this area, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted in 2003 a Recommendation on Common Rules Against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns. According to the Recommendation, political parties should be required regularly to make public their accounts, or a summary thereof, including records of received donations and all campaign expenditures.[2]

The European Union (EU) has adopted similar disclosure conditionality for EU political parties seeking EU funding. Under Article 6 of EU Regulation 2004/2003, an applicant party must, among other conditions:

a.       publish its revenue and expenditure and a statement of its assets and liabilities annually;

b.      declare its sources of funding by providing a list specifying the donors and the donations received from each donor, with the exception of donations not exceeding EUR 500….[3]

Courts in a number of countries have granted citizens access to information about political party finances and other election-related information, sometimes in the absence of any explicit statutory scheme. Courts have ordered disclosure of information about campaign contributions (Canada); bank account information of a political party, where there was unequivocal evidence that it had misused private funds (Costa Rica); the background of candidates, including their assets and any pending criminal investigations (India); the management and use of any public funds (Indonesia); the salary and other income of political party leaders (Mexico); and the terms of an agreement made by parties to form a coalition government (Israel). These cases are described at greater length below. We welcome receipt of copies of, or links to, the court judgments, or further information about the facts of these cases.

Canada. A provincial court in Ontario ruled that an investigative reporter was entitled to have access to an electronic database of campaign contribution records related to a Toronto municipal election. The Ontario Court held that the public interest served by disclosure of the data – namely, facilitating public scrutiny of the democratic election process – was so important that it “clearly outweigh[ed]” any competing interests.[4]

Costa Rica. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Costa Rica upheld the right of access to bank account information concerning a political party in a 2003 decision.[5] The Board of Directors of the Bank of Costa Rica had denied the request for information presented by Representative José Humberto Arce Salas regarding irregularities in the private financing of political parties, on the grounds that such information was protected by bank secrecy and the right to privacy.  The Court reasoned that “in case there is unequivocal evidence that a political party has transferred part of its private funds to a privately-owned company … the information would cease to be of a private nature … and become of public interest."[6]

India. The Supreme Court, in 1996, held that the Election Commission was authorized to collect information from political parties and their candidates on their electoral spending.[7] In 2002, the Court ruled that voters are entitled to receive detailed information about the background of candidates for election, including their assets and any pending criminal investigations. The Court directed the Election Commission to collect such information from all candidates running for national and state legislatures, and to make the information public in advance of elections.[8]

Indonesia. The ATI law is unusual in that it obliges political parties themselves to make available certain information, namely:

a.         the principle and the objectives;

b.         the general program and activities of the political party;

c.         the name, address and composition of the management and the alterations thereto;

d.         the management and use of funds that originate from the state budget and/or the regional budget;

e.         the decision taking mechanism of the party;

f.          the decision of the party; the result of the conference/congress/national

meeting and other decisions that, according to the articles of association

and the party's by-laws are open to the public; and/or

g.         other information provided by the Law pertaining to a political party.[9]

Israel. The Supreme Court ordered political factions to make public the agreements they made concerning the establishment of a coalition government, on the ground that failure to do so “can water down the ability of the public to participate in political life.”[10]

Mexico. The Electoral Tribunal ruled that the public has a right to know the salaries and other income of the national leadership of Mexico’s registered parties. The Court reasoned that

[a]ll Mexican citizens enjoy, in the exercise of their political-electoral rights, a prerogative of receiving information about certain basic aspects of political parties … in order that they can decide whether to vote for [the parties] or not, whether to join them or not, insofar as such decisions form part of the citizen’s freedom to choose, which could not be fully exercised if access to such information were denied….[11]