The Supreme Court is preparing a “cheat sheet” for election commissions to combat violations

The Plenum of the Supreme Court (SC) intends to provide clarifications on cases of offenses related to information support for elections. The main intrigue of the upcoming project is how broadly the circle of people who can be held accountable for violating the rules of campaigning will be outlined. One of the proposed options states that such a violation can be committed not only by the media, but also by “any person” who posted materials on the Internet. The presence of different options means that the Armed Forces are still considering whether to increase the focus on this aspect, the expert explains.

In the draft resolution (Kommersant has read it), the Supreme Court reminds that information support for elections includes both informing voters and pre-election campaigning. The first involves information about candidates and parties, opinion polls, as well as interviews and broadcasts with the participation of candidates. The content of information materials posted in the media or distributed in any other way “must be objective, reliable, and not violate the equality of candidates,” the Supreme Court reminds. For example, false information about a candidate would be considered a violation.

Campaigning can be expressed in calls to vote for a candidate, in expressing preference for one of them, or in disseminating information about activities unrelated to the candidate’s work that contribute to the formation of a negative or positive image of him. Campaigning, the Supreme Court reminds, must be paid from the election account, therefore citizens who do not represent a candidate do not have the right to conduct campaign events independently and at the expense of personal funds. In particular, a voter cannot engage in the production and publication of “audiovisual materials”, but he can freely and voluntarily participate in the distribution of materials paid for from the election fund. Placing a banner in support of a candidate on the balcony of your apartment will also be problematic, as follows from the clarification of the Supreme Court: you will need to obtain the approval of a meeting of homeowners.

The Supreme Court also plans to remind that foreign agents are prohibited by law from campaigning (except for cases when they themselves are candidates). If campaigning is carried out during an unauthorized public event, then this should be qualified under two articles of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

In addition, the Supreme Court intends to clarify to lower courts that registration is not a defining feature of a media outlet. The list of forms of periodic dissemination of information under a permanent name is not closed: for example, they may include an audio program or an electronic publication, the draft resolution notes. Accordingly, the editorial board of a media outlet can be held administratively liable as an official, legal entity or individual – this depends on the form of organization of its activities.

Cases of prosecution for campaigning on the Internet are not uncommon; all the necessary tools for this are already in the law, says Oleg Zakharov, an electoral lawyer and former chairman of the Yaroslavl regional election commission. According to him, during a competitive campaign, up to a dozen protocols can be drawn up, of which a third are “everyday” violations on the Internet: posts with direct campaigning on social networks or posting campaign leaflets there without imprint. The fines for this are small (up to 5 thousand rubles for citizens), so such protocols are often not even appealed, the expert says, and political strategists have long included an item in the budget for fines, since the cost of the issue is minimal and the potential effect is great. Therefore, the plenum of the Supreme Court rather fulfills the task of legal education: it is a “cheat sheet” for the member of the election commission drawing up the protocols, so that he is confident in the correctness of his actions and does not confuse anything in the procedure, explains Mr. Zakharov. At the same time, the presence of options that emphasize that not only the media can be the subject of a violation does not mean at all that the Supreme Court is hesitating here, the lawyer is sure: the point is to increase or decrease the focus on this aspect.

One should not expect any fundamental changes in the current practice, agrees electoral lawyer Anton Rudakov: they are still trying to hold people accountable for campaigning on social networks, but the fines for citizens there are “meager”, and it is difficult for election commissions to put the process of drawing up protocols on stream. But if online publications and bloggers fall into the focus of the Supreme Court ruling, their lives will undoubtedly become more complicated, the expert is sure, especially if they are held accountable as media outlets. It is not very clear why media editors are punished with fines of tens of thousands of rubles, while bloggers, who are often even richer, should not bear similar responsibility for their actions, argues Mr. Rudakov.

Oleg Zakharov also considers it logical that the Supreme Council is organizing an educational program on online campaigning on the eve of the presidential campaign starting in December. Moreover, in addition to the usual “not following the rules” campaigning, more serious threats such as fakes and incitement of hatred may also emerge, the expert warns. And if such cases become widespread, then the lion’s share of the work to suppress them and draw up protocols will fall on the shoulders of regional and territorial election commissions, Mr. Zakharov emphasizes.

Anastasia Kornya