Unfair Advantage: The Abuse of State Resources in Elections OSCE/ODIHR, which are “aimed at assisting national lawmakers and other authorities in adopting laws and initiating concrete measures to prevent and act against the misuse of administrative resources during electoral processes.”13 These guidelines identify foundational principles for developing a framework to prevent and respond to the abuse of state resources, as well as suggestions for the types of mechanisms that should be available in the legal framework (including sanctions and penalties). Other voices in the international community have also posited specific steps to combat the abuse of state resources and improve the credibility of the political process; for example, political scientists Bruno Speck and Alessandra Fontana have recommended more aggressive approaches by donors, such as the possibility of a withdrawal of support to known perpetrators, and building the capacity of civil society to monitor abuses in an effort to hold political actors accountable. They also recommend developing a framework that identifies how state resources are abused, assesses the costs associated with the abuse, and develops interventions based on identified priorities.14 Both GRECO’s third round evaluations as well as the Money, Politics and Transparency scorecards15 have represented useful steps toward country-level identification of how state resources are abused. GRECO’s questionnaires on transparency of party funding16 include several specific inquiries that relate to the abuse of state resources and available remedies. Similarly, Global Integrity’s Money, Politics and Transparency Indicators, which examine both de jure legal frameworks and de facto implementation, includes two questions (out of 50) specifically related to the abuse of state resources,17 while several other lines of inquiry related to free or subsidized access to airtime for electoral campaigning indirectly address this issue. Civil society organizations, such as Transparency International Georgia, have also created methodologies for monitoring the abuse of state resources vis-à-vis the implementation of existing laws.18 In response to a clear need identified on the ground through assessments and in-country programming, IFES is developing a mode of analysis, based on in-depth review of laws and regulations that address the abuse of state resources and the effectiveness of these provisions in deterring or remedying these abuses. This approach focuses on the prevention of specific abuses related to a state’s institutional and financial resources (including restrictions on state personnel, official government communications to the public, and the use of state funds and physical assets). Venice Comm’n & OSCE/ODIHR, Joint Guidelines, supra note 10, at ¶ 3. See Speck & Fontana, supra note 3, at v. 15 A joint project by Global Integrity, The Electoral Integrity Project and the Sunlight Foundation “that provides a rich set of resources intended for stakeholders working to improve political finance systems in their own country, including in-depth research, analysis and case studies on political finance practices, global transparency principles for monitoring political finance and a link to a network of like-minded advocates.” Money, Politics & Transparency, http://moneypoliticstransparency.org/ (last visited June 30, 2016). 16 See GRECO, Third Evaluation Round: Questionnaire on Transparency of Party Funding, at 7, GRECO Eval III (2006) 2E, (Oct. 18, 2006), available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/greco/evaluations/round3/Greco%20Eval%20 III%20(2006)%202E%20Questionnaire%20Party%20funding.PDF.pdf (questions related to sanctions include 24-29). 17 See Direct and Indirect Public Funding, Money, Politics, & Transparency, https://data.moneypoliticstransparency. org/ (“Question 5: In law, use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates is prohibited. Question 6: In practice, to what extent are no state resources used in favor or against political parties and individual candidates’ electoral campaigns?”) (last visited June 30, 2016). 18 Includes analyzing local budgets to determine instances of ‘electorally motivated public spending,’ and monitor’s identification, investigation and verification of allegations related to misuse of coercive, legislative, institutional and financial resources. e.g., TI Georgia Releases a New Monitoring Report on the Misuse of Administrative Resources Ahead of 2013 Presidential Elections, Transparency Int’l: Georgia (Oct. 24, 2013), http://transparency.ge/en/post/ report/ti-georgia-releases-new-monitoring-report-misuse-administrative-resources 13 14 3