ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index

Article 16 of Ley 26.215 explicitly sets contribution limits in statute by specifying maximum donation amounts for both legal entities (1% of permitted expenses) and natural persons (2% of permitted expenses), indexed to a spending limit defined in the same legislative text. The framework is codified in law, not delegated to administrative discretion.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 16 establishes contribution limits for donations to political parties (1% for legal persons, 2% for natural persons), but does not address independent expenditures or third-party spending rules. The section focuses exclusively on direct party donations and does not codify any framework governing spending by entities independent of candidate committees or parties.

Article 15(a) directly and explicitly prohibits anonymous contributions in statute and forbids any conditions imposing non-disclosure of contributor identity. This provides clear statutory grounding for the treatment of anonymous contributions—they are statutorily prohibited with no exception for threshold amounts or other mechanisms. The rule is enumerated and unambiguous.

The statute mandates a detailed report of all public and private contributions received, with indication of origin and amount, to be filed 10 days before election. This establishes a statutory disclosure requirement in absolute terms (no numerical threshold exemption stated). However, the section does not explicitly define a specific monetary threshold above which disclosure becomes mandatory—it appears to require disclosure of all contributions without exception. While this satisfies the requirement that disclosure be statutory and not regulatory, the absence of an enumerated threshold amount (or explicit statement that all amounts must be disclosed) creates interpretive ambiguity about whether a de minimis or practical reporting threshold exists elsewhere in the law.

The statute specifies one clear deadline: annual financial statements must be filed within 90 days of the fiscal year's end. However, DISC.2 evaluates whether the filing schedule is *enumerated* for all required reports—pre-election, post-election, quarterly, etc. This section provides only an annual filing requirement; it does not address whether additional reports (e.g., pre/post-election or periodic interim disclosures) are required or their deadlines. The statute's singular annual schedule is explicit but incomplete relative to the criterion's scope.

Article 44 bis requires that contributor identity be reported in final campaign disclosure ('identificación de las personas'), and mandates that donations be made through traceable methods (bank transfer, check, cash, internet, or other means permitting donor identification). However, the statute does not enumerate specific identity elements: it does not explicitly require name, address, occupation, and employer. The statute requires identification without specifying which identity fields constitute adequate disclosure, leaving the scope of required disclosure details to administrative interpretation.

The statute mandates immediate publication of annual accounting information on the National Judicial Branch website, establishing a clear, statutory requirement for online public accessibility. The law also requires political parties to disseminate information about where complete annual accounting statements and donor lists are published, either on their own websites or via the judicial website, providing a defined access mechanism.

The section codifies both criminal penalties (imprisonment up to 15 days) and civil penalties (fines ranging from $500 to $100,000 depending on the violation) for specific campaign-finance violations including prohibitions on weapons, partisan displays, proselytizing, poll publication, media advertising limits, and campaign acts outside permitted periods. All penalties are statutorily defined with specified amounts.

The section establishes the Cámara Nacional Electoral as the enforcement body with specific audit and oversight powers (including a dedicated Auditor Corps and funding mechanism), satisfying statutory grounding of enforcement authority. However, the text does not address the appointment process or protections against in-cycle political control—it only enumerates powers. A complete assessment of multi-branch appointment and insulation from political pressure requires reference to external constitutional or institutional law not provided in this excerpt.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 28 addresses voter-registry disputes and the elimination of deceased or duplicate voters from electoral rolls. It does not concern campaign finance at all, and therefore does not establish any private right of action for campaign-finance violations. The section pertains to voter eligibility and electoral administration, not to contributions, expenditures, disclosure, or other campaign-finance matters.

Article 15(e)–(f) explicitly prohibit by statute direct contributions from foreign governments, entities, and foreign natural/legal persons without domestic residency or domicile. The prohibition is enumerated exhaustively in the law and creates a clear, codified rule. No reliance on regulation or administrative discretion is evident.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 32 addresses electoral-account procedures (opening, reporting, closure, and fund flows) but contains no statutory language addressing indirect foreign-source channels, foreign nationals acting through domestic entities, foreign-controlled corporate structures, or verification mechanisms to trace beneficial ownership. The provision is entirely silent on foreign-source restrictions or procedures.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 63 addresses penalties for misuse of accounts and failure to document fund sources/destinations, but does not establish any statutory requirement for campaign committees to verify that contributors are not foreign-source entities. The provision focuses on enforcement sanctions rather than procedural verification mechanisms. Foreign-source verification requirements would need to appear in earlier sections establishing affirmative verification obligations, not in a penalties-only provision.

Article 19(a) explicitly mandates retention of supporting documentation for ten years, establishing a clear statutory record-retention requirement with a defined period. This directly satisfies the TRACE.1 criterion by codifying the obligation in statute rather than leaving it to administrative discretion.

Article 23 mandates that political parties place supporting documentation at the disposal of federal electoral courts, creating a statutory basis for audit access. The section also requires annual financial statements (balance sheet and income/expense account) signed by party president, treasurer, and certified public accountant, with technical certification from the professional accounting council. These provisions establish a routine statutory cycle (annual, within 90 days of fiscal year end) and explicit obligation to provide audit-relevant records to electoral authorities, satisfying the audit-access requirement.