egypt-final-presidential-elections-2012

The Carter Center
Presidential Election in Egypt
to them by Egyptians, are important components of
electoral transparency and provide voters a much
fuller picture of the candidates and campaigns. Such
reports demonstrate to the public, including opposing
campaigns and regulators, whether campaigns are
adhering to campaign finance guideline and create
a disincentive for campaigns to attempt to accept
illegal donations or make illegal expenditures. As was
true during the parliamentary elections, allegations
of illegal campaign funding and spending during the
presidential election were difficult to refute, not only
because of the absence of
enforcement of existing
campaign finance regulations
but also because
of the complete absence
of transparency in
campaign donations and
expenditures.
Within 15 days of the
announcement of results,
all candidates are required
to submit to the PEC
a detailed statement of
their campaign finances,
including the total funds
received, their source and nature, amounts spent on
the electoral campaign, and how they were spent. 117
These statements may be referred by the PEC to
Egypt’s Central Auditing Office (CAO), which
must audit and report to the PEC within 15 days.
Furthermore, the PEC is required to redistribute any
outstanding balance of campaign funds on a pro-rata
basis to the contributors. 118
PEC Decision No. 9 of 2012 establishes a
committee to specifically monitor and evaluate the
expenditures of candidates’ campaigns, while the law
provides for both fines and imprisonment penalties
for any person who spends funds on the campaign not
drawn from the bank account, spends funds on other
purposes, exceeds the expenditure limit, or receives
any contributions from foreign or unauthorized
Egyptian sources. 119
Although the campaign finance provisions
of the law are significantly more detailed
and comprehensive than those employed
during the parliamentary elections, there
are still significant concerns about the
effectiveness of these provisions.
Although the campaign finance provisions of the
law are significantly more detailed and comprehensive
than those employed during the parliamentary elections,
there are still significant concerns about the
effectiveness of these provisions. Several campaigns
complained that 10 million EGP was inadequate to
conduct a national campaign in a nation as large
as Egypt. A 2 million EGP limit during the second
round, for a national campaign of more than two
weeks, seemed even more inadequate. Levels this low
could be an incentive for campaigns to spend additional,
unreported funds
or encourage other groups
or individuals to spend
unreported funds on
behalf of the candidate.
The PEC lacked the
capacity to fully enforce
campaign finance
regulations. Allegations
that several candidates
received in-kind, unreported
donations of goods
and services and that
some campaigns may have
received foreign funding
could not be adequately considered by the PEC
during either rounds of the campaign. It was unclear
how many claims of campaign finance violations
were filed directly with the Office of the General
Prosecutor and the status of cases, if any, involving
campaign finance. 120
117 Article 6, PEC Decision No. 7
118 Article 26, Law Regulating the Presidential Election
119 Articles 48 and 55, Law Regulating the Presidential Election
120 In accordance with the law, the PEC informed The Carter Center
that all campaigns would be audited by the Central Auditing Agency
following the conclusion of the second round of the campaign. As
of October 2012, there have been no public reports of any activities
conducted by this agency in reviewing campaign accounts or of any
actions taken by the agency against any campaign.
41