‘Golos’ assessed party assets

The movement of non-governmental observers ‘Golos’ drew attention to the party budgets and party expenses in anticipation of parliamentary election. Experts insist that the largest parties are financially more dependent on the state, rather than on their supporters.

The movement ‘Golos’ released a report analyzing the financial activities of political parties on the eve of the Election to the State Duma. Experts took into consideration the parties exempted from collecting voters’ signatures.

The structure of leading parties’ financial assets demonstrates their increasing financial dependence on the state, according to the experts. ‘Political parties that receive state funding are almost entirely dependent on it. Thus doubled state funding in some cases led to a reduction of support from other sources - donations or membership fees - and demotivated the party leadership to look for long-term financial assistance of the party supporters’, - the report says.

The analysis revealed that the membership fee is no longer regarded as a significant source of financial assets. The largest parties are not financially dependent on its members and supporters, whereas small parties, with the exception of the ‘Communist Russia’, do not charge a membership fee.

A significant part of the assets of ‘United Russia’, the Communist Party and ‘Just Russia’, at the expense of Russian taxpayers, goes for salaries of party employees, office rent and other administrative costs, rather than political activities.

Experts note that only the parties ‘Rodina’ and ‘Patriots of Russia’ share a relatively balanced approach to party finances. Moreover, they are engaged in regional party building, campaigning and allocate funds for taking part in electoral race.

Parties that do not receive state funding for the most are active only during the election period due to the lack of funds.

‘As a result, the competition is highly distorted, primarily due to the enormous state funding to limited circle of political parties’, - ‘Golos’ analysts come to the conclusion.

The report revealed a tendency that transparency concerning the party funding is improving as compared to 2012-2014. ‘Actually the customary practice among political parties to receive funds from associations affiliated with these parties disappeared. We have managed to identify much less facts concerning covert foreign funding’. The problem still remains and NGOs still question a number of cases related to financial assistance from individuals, incommensurate with their income. In the Russian reality, this practice often helps to conceal the actual donor of parties.

The report also presents analysis of covert state funding scheme applied to political parties under the state contracts, grants and subsidies serving as ‘otkat’ (eng. a bribe): a company receives a contract with the State only if it agrees to allocate a share of these assets to a particular party.

Among the companies-donors of political parties which made relatively large contracts with the State in 2015-2016, more than 90% donated to ‘United Russia’ and the rest of funds were received by legal entities providing financial support to ‘patriotic’ parties. The main party to state contracts with such companies at the federal level was the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation and such enterprises as VPK, Rosavtodor and Rosatom, affiliated to it. The most important regional parties to state contracts were regional and local authorities of Bashkortostan, Tatarstan, Voronezh and Tyumen regions, the Yamalo-Nenets autonomous district. ‘There is a reason to believe that in the course of the mandate of the next State Duma these bodies will obtain the greatest lobbying power’, - the experts believe.