Proposition 51K0251

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.

General information ¶

Author

N-VA Geert Bourgeois

Submission date

Oct. 2, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

election financing election expenses party financing election election campaign publicity

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

FN

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. 12, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

I will be very short. I would like to inform you in advance that I am surprised by the decision of the consultation committee to say that this is a proposal relating to Article 77. The committee decided that it would be 78. I know that there are precedents, that there is a certain customary right in this regard, if I can say so. I believe that this bill falls under Article 78 of the Constitution. I can only take note of this and regret it. Their

As for the proposal itself, I would like to point out, colleagues, that this is the logical adaptation of the 1989 Act on Party Financing. I would like to point out to my colleagues that in 1989 the legislator set the threshold for getting party funding very, very low. It was sufficient to have a directly elected Chamber member and a directly elected Senator. In other words, in 1989 it was not intended to make it difficult for parties to obtain funding and even less to dry out parties, but it was set the threshold very minimally. Now, since 1989, the circumstances have changed fundamentally. It is enough to look around you to know that this hemisphere once housed much more chamber members than it is now. Then there were 212 Chamber Members, now there are only 150. At that time, there were 106 directly elected senators in the Senate, now only 40. At that time there were 21 districts in which the senators were elected. There are now only three electoral circles.

Meanwhile, the electoral threshold has also been introduced and all these circumstances have been observed, I find it very logical and normal that the law is adjusted. This was, on the other hand, the opinion of the Minister of Home Affairs in 1989 when he was confronted with amendments in the Senate. He pointed out that the legislation should be amended at a time when the Senate is differently composed. I would like to point out that even within this majority there are firm intentions to abolish the Senate altogether and that it is obvious that this would no longer be taken into account. Their

I think it is a matter of justice. I point out that my party has obtained more than 200,000 votes, that there is a party in this hemisphere with only 130,000 votes, which receives full party funding, that the colleagues of Ecolo — the wise granted them — with fewer votes than the N-VA also receive party funding.

Therefore, I was very pleased that all committee members unanimously agreed with me that this is a useful, necessary and above all just adjustment of the law of 1989. There has actually been no discussion in the committee; only, on the edge of this law, a number of colleagues have pointed out that it prevents them so that it would be better to again allow parties to use 20m2 boards in advance of the elections. In the meantime, of course, they had the opportunity to vote on it in the form of an amendment. This was not approved, but as mentioned, there was unanimity in the committee for this bill. I hope this will be the case in this half-course as well. I thank you.