33 MPs who used subventions for campaigning purposes have got into the Parliament

According to the results of 21 July 2019 parliamentary elections, 33 MPs, who used budget resources for personal media and campaigning purposes, have been re-elected to the Parliament. Three of them were in TOP-12 of MPs who have used state subvention funds for campaigning purposes. 

From June 2018 to July 2019, Civil Network OPORA's observers recorded 2,724 cases of promotions on budget resources by 147 MPs elected in majoritarian districts and 27 party-list MPs.

Thus, only three of TOP-12 of MPs, who have used budget resources for personal media and campaigning purposes,  have been re-elected to the Parliament. We are talking about Ihor Huz (179 cases of personal promotion), who has won in district #19; Serhii Rudyk (100 cases), who has won in district #198, and Anton Yatsenko (79 cases), who celebrates victory in district #200. 

 Other MPs of TOP-12 have not managed to repeat the success of their colleagues. Their results:

1. Pavlo Dziublyk (117 cases). He ran as an independent candidate in district #66, Zhytomyr oblast. He took the 3rd place. Vitalii Zhuravskyi (independent candidate) and nominee of the Servant of the People, who has eventually won in this district, were ahead of him.
2. Oleh Barna (100 cases). He was nominated by the European Solidarity party in district #167, Ternopil oblast. He took the 5th place in the district as a result. Representative of the Servant of the People party has won in the district. 
3. Oleksandr Dekhtiarchuk (82 cases). He ran as an independent candidate in district #154, Rivne oblast. He took the 2nd place. He lost to the representative of the Servant of the People.
4.  Kostiantyn Ishcheikin (66 cases). He ran as an independent candidate in district #148 (Poltava oblast). He took the 3rd place. He lost to the representative of the Servant of the People party.
5.  Vladyslav Holub (62 cases).  He ran as an independent candidate in district #197. He took the 2nd place. He lost to the candidate representing the Servant of the People party.
6.  Hryhorii Timish (62 cases). He ran as an independent candidate in district #203 (Chernivtsi oblast). He took the 4th place. Victory in this district was gained by the representative of the Servant of the People party.
7.  Oleh Liashko (60 cases). Was the first candidates in the list of the Radical Party of Oleh Liashko, which received a little more that 4% of the total number of votes and did not enter the Parliament.
8. Bohdan Dubnevych (59 cases). He ran as an independent candidate in district #118. He took the 2nd place. He lost to the representative of the Holos party.
9. Vasyl Yanitskyi (59 cases). He ran as an independent candidate in district #155, Rivne oblast. He took the 3rd place. Independent candidate Viktor Mialyk won in this district. Candidate representing the Servant of the People took the 2nd place.

As for the other 30 MPs, OPORA's observers recorded from 1 to 54 cases when subventions were used in campaigning purposes. In particular, most of them are recorded by Mykhailo Bondar (he was nominated by the European Solidarity in district #118, Lviv oblast), Oles Dovhyi (ran as an independent candidate in district #102, Kirovohrad oblast), Yaroslav Dubnevych (he ran in district #120, Lviv oblast), Mykola Kucher (he ran as an independent candidate in district #17, Vinnytsia oblast) and Taras Batenko, who won in district #123, Lviv oblast.
 

In a democratic election, the misuse of budget resources for campaigning purposes by candidates and parties is a negative practice. In particular, because of the following reasons:

• Administrative resource. The use of budget funds for the purpose of indirect early campaigning is a form of budget administrative resource.
• Non-competitive elections. The use of budget funds, access to which MPs have received, increases their chances of winning in an election and reduces the chances of winning for candidates who did not have access to them.
• It goes beyond the competence of MPs. MPs present budget spendings on the certain objects (sports fields, etc.) and the purchase of equipment (computers, etc.) as their own accomplishments, replacing the powers of local governments, which should solve such problems. MPs have other responsibilities, for example to pass laws. In fact, most of them focus their attention on how much money they have managed to get for their district, not on what legislative initiatives they have developed or adopted and how they affect the lives of citizens.
• Such priority is quite doubtful. Subventions are quite often allocated for objects that suit better for PR campaigns. As a result, objects that have a stronger need in reconstruction or construction are left out.

OPORA insists that distribution of subventions should be transparent and uniform. The new Government should introduce clear mechanisms and criteria for priority-based distribution of budget resources. All these factors will make the allocation of funds impartial and politically neutral. Therefore, OPORA will send the new Cabinet of Ministers detailed recommendations on how to improve the process of subvention distribution. The organization sent similar recommendations in December 2018, but they were ignored. 

For comment, please contact:

Anatolii Bondarchuk, Analyst at Civil Network OPORA

+380969187408

e-mail: [email protected]