ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index
How well is money in politics regulated and disclosed?
Dimensions
Contributions
0.0% · 0/3| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| CONT.1Contribution limit framework codifiedIf contribution limits exist, are they set by statute (not administrative discretion)? If no limits, is that absence explicit in statute? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section merely announces procedural matters (deposit of the law, posting of penalties) and introduces the chapter on campaign spending, but does not codify any contribution limits or explicitly state the absence of such limits. No substantive framework governing contributions is articulated here. | § view source 2026-06-16 |
| CONT.2Independent expenditure rulesAre independent-expenditure rules (third-party spending separate from candidate committees) codified in statute? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: This section contains only procedural directives about posting penalties and depositing copies of the electoral law at polling stations. It does not address independent expenditures, third-party spending, or any substantive rules governing spending by entities separate from candidate committees. The section is a heading introducing Chapter VII on electoral expenses but provides no codified independent-expenditure rules. | § view source 2026-06-16 |
| CONT.3Anonymous-contribution treatmentAre anonymous contributions (cash below the threshold, etc.) addressed in statute with a defined disposition (returned, forfeited, etc.)? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
Disclosure
0.0% · 0/5| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| DISC.1Disclosure threshold in statuteIs the disclosure threshold (amount above which contributions must be reported) defined in statute, not regulation? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 145 concerns only the mechanics of vote counting and seat allocation under a proportional-representation system. It contains no reference to contribution disclosure, thresholds, reporting requirements, or any campaign-finance procedural element. The section is entirely silent on disclosure obligations. | § view source 2026-06-16 |
| DISC.2Enumerated filing scheduleIs the filing schedule (pre-election, post-election, quarterly, etc.) enumerated in statute with specific deadlines? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 145 addresses vote counting and allocation procedures for proportional representation systems; it contains no provisions whatsoever regarding campaign-finance disclosure, filing schedules, or deadlines. The section is entirely procedural for ballot tabulation and seat distribution, not campaign finance reporting. | § view source 2026-06-16 |
| DISC.3Disclosure of contributor identityDoes statute require contributor name, address, occupation, and employer be disclosed for contributions above the threshold? | 0/20.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
| DISC.4Public access to filingsAre campaign-finance filings legally required to be publicly accessible online within a defined time of filing? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
Enforcement
50.0% · 2/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| ENF.1Penalty schedule codifiedAre penalties for campaign-finance violations defined in statute with specified amounts (civil) and/or criminal grades? | 2/2100.0% | Article 96 codifies a criminal penalty (amende) with a defined range (500–5,000 euros) for vote-buying and related conduct. The statute specifies both the prohibited conduct (offering money, values, or advantages in exchange for a vote, abstention, or spoiled ballot) and the sanction, satisfying the requirement for a statutorily-grounded penalty schedule. “Est puni d'une amende de 500 à 5.000 euros quiconque a, directement ou indirectement, même sous forme de pari, donné, offert ou promis, soit de l'argent, soit des valeurs ou avantages quelconques, sous la condition d'obtenir en sa faveur ou en faveur d'un tiers un suffrage, l'abstention de voter ou la remise d'un bulletin de vote nul. Sont punies des mêmes peines les personnes qui ont accepté les dons, offres ou promesses.” | § view source 2026-06-16 |
| ENF.2Enforcement body independenceIs the enforcement body (election commission, attorney general, campaign-finance regulator) appointed by multi-branch process and protected from in-cycle political control? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
| ENF.3Private right of actionDoes statute provide a private right of action (citizen or party suit) for campaign-finance violations? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
Foreign Source
0.0% · 0/4| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| FOR.1Foreign-source prohibitionIs direct foreign contribution to a candidate or campaign committee prohibited by statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
| FOR.2Indirect / pass-through foreign rulesAre indirect foreign-source channels (foreign nationals via domestic entities, foreign-controlled LLCs, etc.) addressed in statute? | 0/20.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
| FOR.3Foreign-source verificationAre campaign committees required by statute to verify contributors are not foreign-source (vs. relying on contributor self-attestation alone)? | 0/10.0% | No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 24 addresses the procedural mechanics of electoral appeals and recourse to the district commissioner, covering filing deadlines, notification requirements, and record-keeping for disputed voter registration. The section contains no provisions regarding campaign finance, contributor verification, or foreign-source restrictions. It is entirely procedural with respect to electoral disputes, not campaign funding oversight. | § view source 2026-06-16 |
Traceability
0.0% · 0/2| Datapoint | Score | Rationale & evidence | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| TRACE.1Records-retention requirementAre campaign committees required by statute to retain records (contributor lists, expenditure documentation, bank statements) for a defined period? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |
| TRACE.2Audit accessAre campaign-committee records subject to mandatory audit (post-election random sample, threshold-triggered audit, or routine cycle) under statute? | 0/10.0% | No matching sections in corpus. | no FTS match 2026-06-16 |