Official Gazette – Issue No. 8 bis (a) May 26, 2013 19 A penalty of confinement to jail for a period of no less than three months and a fine of no less than five thousand pounds and no more than twenty thousand pounds or either penalty shall be inflicted on whoever violates the other rules referred heretofore". There are 4 remarks about this text: 1- Paragraph 1 of article (13) of the draft law in clause (2) thereof stipulated preserving national unity and refraining from using any slogan for electoral campaigning that leads to distinction based on religion, gender or origin, and whereas article (6) of the constitution builds the state's political system on the basis of citizenship which treats all citizens equally in the public rights and duties and in respect of human rights and freedoms; to preserve the national unity emphasized in article (5) of the constitution, and which is also protected by principles 5 and 7 of the constitution's preamble. Whereas using religious slogans in itself leads to religious distinction among citizens; since the followers of each religion will use the slogan that glorifies their religion which destroys the essence of citizenship principle and adds a new reason for spreading and deepening disunity and split among citizens. Whereas the organization of the electoral process shall not be possible unless it is reasonable; and this is achieved only when it is neutral in its content. Whereas the presented text omits banning the use of religious or doctrinal slogans or symbols in themselves, it undermines national unity, contrasts the concept of citizenship, infringes the citizen's right to election, candidacy and political rights exercise and hinders voters from determining his/her opinion of candidates and comparing among them with respect to their platforms. It also infringes the principles of equal opportunities and equity among candidates themselves; which makes such text contradictory to articles (5, 6, 9, 33 and 55) of the constitution. 2- The second paragraph of article (13) of the draft law vested HEC with determining the maximum campaign expenditure limit that may not be exceeded. Whereas article (228) of the constitution tasked HEC with full supervision of the first legislative elections following the enforcement of the constitution, without HEC's entitlement to determining a maximum campaign expenditure limit, violating this maximum limit is criminally punished in accordance with the last paragraph of article (13) of the draft law. Whereas article (76) of the constitution stipulates that the penalty shall be personal, and since there shall be neither crime nor penalty unless according to a constitutional or legal text, indicating that the determination of the stated maximum limit must be included in the framework of the legislator's power solely, the text shall be contrary to the constitution from this view, as well as violating article (55) of the constitution considering that the electoral campaigning is a method to introduce candidates and their platforms to voters, which is closely related to the rights of election and candidacy. This requires electoral campaigning to be regulated by a law according to what is stipulated by this constitutional text. Accordingly, paragraph 2 of such article, concerning HEC's determination of the stated maximum limit, violates articles (55), (76) and (228) of the constitution. 3- Also, paragraph 2 of the aforementioned article (13) tasked HEC with setting the rules on the means and methods regulating electoral campaigning. Whereas the decrees issued by HEC in this regard are mere executive regulations according to