State Duma deputy on loans to political parties

The government proposes to limit the maximum loan amount for political parties to five times the annual donation. The first deputy chairman of the State Duma Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, Alexander Ageev, and the director of the Institute of Political Sociology, Vyacheslav Smirnov, commented on the situation to host Andrei Norkin.

Photo: Gleb Shchelkunov, Kommersant / buy photo

The government's initiative was announced by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Now the party can receive donations from legal entities in the amount of 43 million rubles during the year, and from individuals in the amount of 4 million rubles. Thus, the maximum loan amount for a party can be about 240 million rubles.

— Mr. Ageev, how often do parties take out loans? What are they taking for? For elections, probably, what other cases are there?

A.A.: I simply don’t know of such cases, at least. It just can't be like that. It is very difficult for a party to get a loan, in principle, because a party can only have administrative buildings, furniture, and computers on its balance sheet. This is even very difficult to lay down. Still, they consider economic benefits, but the party does not have a stable income. Now only parliamentary parties have funding, and we have the Yabloko party there as well. And it goes, in fact, only to carry out activities.

— Why then is it necessary to somehow separately limit the size of these loans?

A.A.: This is absolutely not necessary. The government is simply doing something that no one needs. I am absolutely convinced of this. At the same time, when we heard this today, we do not see the bill on the government portal, nor in the State Duma. It is not in the system, so far only comments from the government portal.

- Mr. Smirnov, what kind of proposal is this?

V.S.: The proposal is, in fact, very strange, because before today’s bill there were no cases of parties taking or someone giving them a loan. A colleague said correctly that, firstly, there is nothing to give. Although parliamentary parties can count on having state funding after the elections to the State Duma, this is 1.6 billion for United Russia and 434 million rubles per year for Just Russia. But this is still such a risky amount. Any party may not overcome the entry barrier, then this funding will not be available.

Most likely, the need to introduce this clause on loans into legislation became demanded by United Russia for the reason that the number of deputy mandates that are distributed according to the list decreases during elections to the State Duma, accordingly, to attract funding as a mandatory contribution to the party fund from everyone on the list is impossible. Therefore, some workarounds are being sought to compensate for the shortfall in funds for the federal list. It is clear that if any other parliamentary party applies for a loan, it will most likely be refused. And United Russia, as a rule, is not refused.

— As far as I remember, earlier the Ministry of Justice generally proposed banning the very possibility of taking out loans for parties. Why was this idea not supported then?

V.S.: This is reasonable, because the parties actually have nothing to give. And if the party did not pass the five percent threshold, then who will give it? If it dissolves, there is no collective responsibility, party members do not bear any responsibility. The party chairman can be removed a week before the elections at the congress, but he took out a loan before that. Someone really needs money.

- Mr. Ageev, do you agree with this?

A.A.: In principle, I agree. But on the other hand, I don’t understand at all why go there and regulate this issue in some additional way. We have a market, and banks, and any credit organizations count their money, so if they consider it necessary to give a loan to a party, in my opinion, in all legislation we have the opportunity for any organization to attract credit funds to its assets. Therefore, let this all be settled.

It seems to me that the meaning of the law is different. In the same place, in principle, you see that now any party is subject to the possibility of conducting a state or independent audit, thereby the state apparatus has an even greater influence on the independence of the party. I also don’t understand one more nuance: why are they getting involved in regulation? This limits the possibility of financing political parties by legal entities and individuals. In my opinion, the amount is quite large - a legal entity can cost 43 million, and an individual – a little over 4 million. But, in my opinion, you know, no one has ever helped us with such amounts. Because every time some legal entity sees the need to help our party, they only manage to help our party once. And then administrative pressure begins on them, threats and so on. That’s why it’s never possible for us to find a stable sponsor.

"The government is doing something that no one needs"