ECIElection Campaign-Finance Index

Article 134 § 2 and § 3 establish contribution limits by statute for Polish citizens and candidates, respectively. The limits are defined in the electoral code itself (15x and 45x minimum wage) and pegged to a statutory reference (the minimum wage law), not delegated to administrative discretion. The framework is explicit and codified.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 90 establishes the formation and governance of candidate committees for presidential elections, including appointment of electoral and financial agents. It contains no provisions addressing independent expenditures, third-party spending, or rules governing organizations spending separately from candidate committees. The section does not codify any statutory framework for independent-expenditure regulation.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 134 establishes contribution limits (§2-3) and specifies permissible payment methods (§5: checks, transfers, payment cards only), which effectively exclude anonymous cash contributions. However, the statute does not explicitly address how anonymous contributions or cash donations are to be treated — whether they should be rejected, returned, forfeited, or handled otherwise. The section mandates a single bank account and prescribed payment channels but contains no enumerated procedure for the disposition of anonymous funds that may nonetheless arrive.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 145 addresses the procedural appeals mechanism for rejected financial reports by electoral committees, including timelines for appeals to the Supreme Court and regional courts. It does not define or reference any disclosure threshold for contributions. The section concerns post-hoc review of already-filed reports, not the substantive rules governing what contributions must be disclosed or above what amount.

The statute specifies one clear, enumerated post-election deadline: financial reports must be submitted within 3 months after election day. However, it does not establish a comprehensive filing schedule that covers pre-election disclosures, interim reports, or quarterly filings. The section addresses only the post-election reporting obligation, leaving pre-election and other periodic filing requirements to be found (or not) elsewhere in the Electoral Code.

Article 140 § 1(2) requires disclosure of contributor name (imię, nazwisko) and place of residence (miejscowość zamieszkania) for contributions exceeding the minimum wage threshold, satisfying the name-and-address requirement. However, the statute does not mandate disclosure of occupation or employer information, which are elements of 'full identity' under the criterion. The procedural requirement is statutorily grounded and enumerated, but incompletely covers the identity fields specified in DISC.3.

“ze wskazaniem imienia, nazwiska oraz miejscowości zamieszkania takiej osoby”

Article 146 explicitly requires the electoral body receiving financial reports to make public information about accepted and rejected financial statements of election committees available in the Bulletin of Public Information (Biuletyn Informacji Publicznej), which is Poland's designated official public-records repository. This establishes a clear statutory obligation for public accessibility of filings in a designated online/public forum.

The section codifies a penalty schedule for a campaign-finance violation (failure to transfer surplus funds to a public-benefit organization). It specifies both a criminal sanction (fine/grzywnie) and deprivation of liberty (ograniczenia wolności or pozbawienia wolności) up to 2 years. The penalties are grounded directly in statute, satisfying the requirement for a defined penalty schedule with criminal grades.

“podlega grzywnie, karze ograniczenia wolności albo pozbawienia wolności do lat 2”

The section establishes the State Electoral Commission (PKW) as the enforcement body for electoral-committee registration disputes and provides procedural independence in adjudication (no appeal from PKW decisions). However, the statute does not address PKW's appointment process, tenure protections, or structural safeguards against in-cycle political control. The procedural finality provided here is insufficient to establish multi-branch appointment or constitutional protection from external political pressure during campaign periods.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 145 addresses only the procedural appeal mechanism for financial committees challenging rejection of their financial reports by electoral authorities. It establishes administrative and judicial review processes (complaints to the Supreme Court and regional courts) but does not create a private right of action for citizens or parties to sue for campaign-finance violations. The provision is limited to financial-committee standing to contest report rejections, not to private enforcement of campaign-finance rules.

Article 132 § 3-4 explicitly restricts financial sources for electoral committees to Polish citizens with permanent residence in Poland and bank credits. § 4 similarly restricts sources for presidential candidates to Polish citizens, political party funds, and bank credits. This statutory language directly prohibits foreign sources by limiting permissible sources to domestic actors only.

No matching sections in corpus.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 132 establishes which sources of funds are permissible (Polish citizens with permanent residence, party electoral funds, bank credits) but contains no statutory requirement that campaign committees must verify contributor identity or foreign-source status. The provision restricts the categories of allowed sources but does not mandate verification procedures, audits, or identity-checking mechanisms that would operationalize this restriction. Enforcement and verification procedures are not addressed in this section.

No section in the FTS-surfaced candidates satisfies this criterion. Best signal: Article 353 addresses vote-counting procedures and electoral commission protocols, not campaign committee record retention. The section mandates storage of election documents by the Krajowego Biura Wyborczego but contains no requirements for campaign committees to retain contributor lists, expenditure documentation, or bank statements. This section is procedurally about vote tabulation, not campaign finance compliance.

Article 144 establishes a statutory mechanism for electoral authorities to audit campaign-finance reports and may commission expert examinations. However, the statute does not specify whether audits are mandatory, random, threshold-triggered, or cyclical. The examination power exists but lacks enumerated procedural requirements defining when, how often, or to which committees audits apply—leaving implementation detail to administrative discretion rather than statutory rule.