Proposition 50K2270

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 juillet 1989 relative à la limitation et au contrôle des dépenses électorales engagées pour les élections des Chambres fédérales, ainsi qu'au financement et à la comptabilité ouverte des partis politiques, et modifiant le Code électoral.

General information ¶

Authors

Groen Lode Vanoost
MR Daniel Bacquelaine, Richard Fournaux
Open Vld Hugo Coveliers
PS | SP Claude Eerdekens
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Feb. 5, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

election financing election expenses party financing election election campaign publicity

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• François Dufour (PS | SP) abstained from voting.
• Jef Valkeniers (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 20, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, the present bill aims primarily at three objectives.

First, it is necessary to give an initial implementation to the measures proposed by the Working Group of the Control Commission on election expenditure and the accounting of political parties, as formulated in its report of 3 October 2001.

Second, existing legislation must be applied in the context of the amended electoral circles, as set out in the Act of 13 December 2002 concerning various amendments to the electoral legislation.

Third, it is intended to harmonise that legislation with that contained in the law of 7 July 1994 on the limitation and control of electoral expenses for the election of provincial councils, municipal councils, district councils and for the direct election of councils for public good.

Mr Coveliers gives an overview of the main changes proposed, such as the definition of the concept of "political mandators", the regulation regarding the election expenses of the first-placed Dutch candidates proposed both in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde electoral district and in the Leuven electoral district, the third-party campaign and the Internet applications, the notion of "gadget" which is better defined, the prohibition of certain forms of campaign, the introduction of the receipt certificate for the submitted forms, the Control Commission which must be advised in its work by the Rekenhof.

In his speech, the employee of the Minister of Internal Affairs refers to the principal speaker of the bill, Mr Coveliers, who in his introductory presentation reminded the main objectives.

He adds that the Minister is satisfied with Article 5, which covers the banned forms of campaign. New is that the ban on the distribution of gadgets and gifts is being refined. In addition, not only commercial telephone campaigns would be banned, but also all kinds of analogue forms of telecommunication, such as text messages. Furthermore, that article provides that for non-commercial campaigns by telephone or SMS, the costs of election propaganda must be charged and must be proven by invoices.

The Minister also decided to seek advice from the Committee for the Protection of the Privacy, as the new forms of electoral propaganda could occur very aggressively. Privacy must be respected.

During the general discussion, Ms Pelzer-Salandra stated that she considers the bill merely as a step in the right direction. With regard to the control of electoral expenditure, it shall endeavour to have it carried out by an independent institution or by a specialized administration.

Mr Denis D'Hondt supports the principles of the bill and wishes to obtain some further clarification regarding the draft 3bis of Article 2. Mr. Coveliers replies that the legislative power is nevertheless the first power and is therefore best suited to carry out that control.

During the article-by-article discussion, two further amendments were submitted by Mr Coveliers. Finally, the Internal Affairs Committee unanimously decided to derogate from Article 18.4 a) bis of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber. The committee then unanimously adopted the entire bill, which was thus improved and amended.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill on the modification of electoral expenditure is of course the result of the work of the working group of the Control Commission on Election expenditure and the Accounting of the political parties.

First, that working group had to review the legislation in question and formulate proposals to streamline the regulation in view of the 2003 elections. To a large extent, he has managed to reach a broad consensus on almost all matters.

Second, the task force aimed to adapt existing legislation to the new constellation of electoral circles.

Thirdly, and finally, the working group aimed to ⁇ , as far as possible, harmonisation with the legislation on local elections.

Starting from these objectives, the proposers of the bill have proposed a number of amendments, the guidelines of which I will briefly outline. First, the control committee will again be composed exclusively of members of parliament, as was previously the case before the entry into force on 13 December 2002 of the law amending the electoral law. Second, the Working Group has included in the proposal that the concept of components of a political party is extended to include the political groups of the provincial councils, and with the VZWs who receive the grants on behalf of the party. Furthermore, in the same article, an attempt was made to give a definition of the concept of political mandatar.

Third, it proposes an adjustment of the electoral law — a slightly more delicate point — regarding the maximum amounts allowed for candidates, which also proved necessary. The lists of the Dutch candidates for the electoral district BrusselHalle-Vilvoorde are the same as those for the electoral district Leuven. Since these candidates appear in two electoral circles, it is necessary to include a paragraph 2a in Article 2 of the Election Expenditures Act, in order to clarify that the candidates first placed on the lists are only entitled to the flat amount of EUR 8,700, though increased by EUR 0,035 per voter registered before the previous elections in both electoral circles.

Finally, the Audit Committee has also given a better definition of the concept of gadget. In analogy with local legislation, the same article also prohibits the sale of gadgets, as well as the conduct of commercial telephone campaigns, including SMS messages and the use of commercial advertising messages via radio, television and cinemas. There are also some changes to the procedure for declaring election expenditure and the origin of the funds. This proposal is thus ultimately a consensus proposal, as was made in the working group, in which one could actually have also taken into account the non-substantial amendment that from this legislature the weight of the lists for the allocation of seats to the candidates is halved. This makes the range for the candidates much more equal. The previously seemingly irrevocable obstacle to the useful order, which could only be broken by a rare one for the transfer of list votes, has been removed by this reform to a very significant extent. Consequently, on 18 May, voters will be able to participate in federal elections for the first time by issuing their preferred vote to decide who will ultimately hold the parliamentary mandate. Their

The VLD group, colleagues, will therefore approve the present proposal, but I immediately add that a significant number of our members have taken the view that it has actually failed to reach a consensus — we regret this — with regard to the financial equality of the candidates. Those who are in an eligible seat, plus the so-called joker, if one can call it so, will indeed have the opportunity to spend a lot more than the other effective candidates who are still flat-rate limited to an expense of 5,000 euros or 2,500 euros for the deputy. It is evident that this financial inequality between candidates is at odds with what is the essence of what is going to happen now, in particular the halving of the list votes, in fact giving the voter himself more options to choose who will eventually sit in Parliament. Their

We therefore continue to note that for the future Parliament will have to reflect on slowly but surely eliminating the financial inequality that still exists in the law for each of the candidates. Taking into account all these comments, we, as a group, will undoubtedly approve this proposal.