15.janvārī parliament is likely to put a new pre-promotion framework. Work on the three-party funding and electoral canvassing relevant laws began shortly after the scandalous 2006 parliamentary election campaign, which was a visible element of the so-called positivism campaigns. Starta shots change raidīja three coalition parties, who came up with the initiative to allow election candidates to spend unlimited future elections, the amount (ie, to withdraw from the election spending caps). Two years later the situation has changed significantly. The idea of spending ceilings for publicly any cancellations lot longer defend. Even more - with 15.janvāra amendment could be resolved, even those problems that the previous terms, they feared getting on to it.
But first, on election spending "ceiling", which was reformed at July 2008. Major changes: more than 50% of lots had increased spending on pre-authorized maximum amount, in addition, limits were applied to all parties and not electoral activities, but only a few (major - ad placement, sponsorship, postage). These matters political compromise was reached, although the lot, long and hard kaulējoties parliamentary government and local government commission, the consensus was very close - the end of understanding on mutually acceptable spending ceilings differed by about 50 000 lats.
The conclusion is a positive solution. Providus's previous parliamentary election monitoring showed that at least five existing lots (2004, set at the outset) spending ceilings were too low - say, the lot, either pārtērēja allowed amount of overshoot or were close. To be able to function limitations, they must be rooted in real life. If the ceiling is far too low in the lots with access to large financial resources, they increasingly seek out ways to escape from the limitations and benefits of such systems will not be none. Saeima approved Option (ceilings - about Ls 460, 000) allows the parties during the election to spend the amounts to be much larger than their incomes starpvēlēšanu years, but - and this, in my opinion, is the key! - Still prevents millions of lats worth the campaign, what we saw in the 2002 parliamentary elections.
Municipal Elections
The discussions parliamentary committees from time to time it was mentioned in the scenarios for which the legal assessment will still be difficult. For example, what criteria determine whether the medial roll of the submitted ad, which argued strongly for what values whether or not the pre-election campaign? Did a lot of donations should be considered a promotional clip, which deployed its own name any individual, but it is certain that the placement is consistent with the political parties? Such situations are bound to depend on the circumstances of each particular situation. Members of the Parliament was not ready for them to provide more precise regulation. Therefore, the correct legal interpretation will still be guided by constitutional principles and party finances for regulatory purposes. I think that after the 2006 electoral exercises, the lot is realizing that every word of lots, and campaign finance laws and regulations is of great importance - the robust regulatory framework does not imply that everything is permitted.
During the shortage denied 15.janvāra Act amendments to refine the way. Members agreed to start the new mechanisms are already provided to the June local and European elections, to verify their viability and, if necessary, before the 2009 parliamentary elections again this time to revise the regulation.
15.janvāra Innovation
15.janvārī parliament to decide on the essential innovations of electoral campaigns. Lengthy search rezulātā compromise, parliamentary government and local government commission members arrived at a solution to the critical problems in the previous election.
1. The so-called third-party problem (when the political ads are placed instead of the party, but rather some other organization or even individuals). Members chose a simple (perhaps even over-simplified!) Solutions for this complex problem - namely, to determine such a campaign spending ceiling of 15 minimum monthly salary level, the imposition of another advertising claims.
2. Equal terms of political advertising prices. To prevent the 2005 municipal election experience recurrence of incomprehensible reasons, one political party had won a huge amount of advertising credits, the new regulation provides for the obligation to release publicly announce the times of political advertising prices and prohibiting deviate from those prices.
3. In response to the Supreme Court in 2006 of by the decision, which stated an effective mechanism for monitoring elections in the absence of parliamentary commission was able to agree on such a mechanism. The facility has two main elements: 1) the media obliged all political advertising contracts forward KNAB) 2) KNAB mandate to stay in the case of political campaigns.
After the brackets
So far, no clear regulatory framework still remains a whole series of important issues, such as the possible promotion at the municipality owned media, the parties granted free transmission reform, lots popularity rating disclosure conditions shortly before the election. Tackling these issues a few years, has repeatedly been postponed, hopefully, at least until the elections 9.Saeimas of them will produce a framework. On a later time and may not defer the introduction of penalties for breaches of the new system.
Finally worth mentioning another important 15.janvāra innovation - namely, members agreed the day before the election and on election day to withdraw from political ads. Just such a "reflection period" to voters was a peak in the parliamentary government and local government a majority of the Members were willing to support.
Overall, the work of the panel, all of 2008 working on a new regulation, there has been a surprisingly constructive. The positive outcome of this case demonstrates the fact that all the parties represented in Parliament is advantageous for the new regulation would be adopted, rather than keeping the old. Brutal act or neglect izlavierēt looking through the legal framework finesēm is still possible. But it is almost certain that in the event of a subsequent referendum would be on the prohibition of political advertising.
Iveta coat, provides, researcher, Diena.lv
