The Russian regulations provide a clear example of how the provision of completely unrealistic amounts under items pertaining to donations and expenses that the candidatures are entitled to, not only do not contribute to a more honest electoral process, but on the contrary, are an open invitation for no political group to observe the legal provisions. Consequently they systematically resort to the forgery of electoral income and expenses and illegal sources of funding.
The problem clearly arises as a result of deficient legal regulations. For example, during the 1996 presidential elections and in accordance with article 45 of the Law for the election of the President, donations were limited to a maximum of US$577 per person and the maximum expenses a candidature was entitled to was US$2,887,500, i.e., little over one cent per inhabitant in a country of more than 17 million square miles. The same problems, giving rise to similar figures, just as inadequate, occur regarding the elections to the Parliament or Duna.
Evidently, such types of regulations should be avoided at all costs. In this regard Russia is a perfect example of how its highly detailed regulations on electoral income and expenses and the control are, in reality, totally beyond limits and if they intend regulating this matter effectively, they would have to set out from a realistic scheme of expenses, which would not incite the political parties to necessarily have to look towards illegal means to fund their electoral campaigns.
For further details on the problem in Russia, please see the excellent report by Barnes, Catherine; Dahl, Robert; Edgeworth, Linda; McDonald, Leane: 'The Election of President of the Russia Federation. A Technical Analysis with Recommendations for Legal and Procedural Reform'. IFES, Washington 1996.
