In a landmark 7-3 decision on 28 August Mexico’s supreme court (SCJN) ruled that the so-called ‘Kumamoto law’ on the financing of political parties in the state of Jalisco is constitutional. The law, passed in June this year, enforces a sharp reduction in the funding of local political parties, and could have major repercussions across the country as a whole.
Pedro Kumamoto, one of Mexico’s youngest elected representatives, could be on the way to triggering a massive shake-up in the country’s politics. He was elected to the Jalisco state legislature in 2015 as an independent (he was 25 years old at the time). He campaigned largely through social media and was elected with modest financial backing (he asked supporters to limit their contributions to not more than US$500 and said his 40-day election campaign cost a total of US$16,000 in public and private funding, compared to an average spend of around US$84,000 by his rivals). Now 27, Kumamoto has argued that the traditional political parties, funded mainly out of the public purse, get far too much money. He has set about cutting that back.
Existing federal law establishes a specific formula for the funding of Mexican political parties. It states that each year the national electoral institute (INE) will provide funding for all qualifying parties by multiplying the total number of registered voters by 65% of an inflation-indexed accounting unit, known as the Unidad de Medida y Actualización (UMA).
In general election years the total amount available is increased by 50%; in mid-term congressional election years there is a 30% uplift. The funds are distributed to political parties in proportion to their share of the vote in the preceding elections to the chamber of deputies. Using the formula, the INE said earlier in August that next year, when general elections will be held, it will be distributing around M$6.8bn (US$381m) to parties at the federal level, and a further M$6.3bn (US$353m) at state level. The parties also receive private funding: in 2015, according to INE, that totalled M$104.1m (US$5.8m).
Kumamoto successfully proposed that Jalisco should modify the formula at state level. He submitted a bill that was approved by the state legislature last June. It's main point of difference with the federal approach is that in years in which there are no elections in Jalisco (two out of every three) the overall funding formula is to be cut to 20%, rather than 65% of the UMA. Spending will also be lower in election years. The Jalisco public funding formula will be based not on the total number of registered voters, but on those who actually voted for a political party at the previous elections. Those who abstain, or who cast a blank or spoiled ballot cannot be taken into account in the funding calculation. The new state law is due to come into force in 2019.
Kumamoto has said, “We will save ourselves the money that goes on rattles, pennants, electoral garbage, and the massive meals eaten by politicians. To put a number on it, we’re talking about state-level savings of around M$550m (US$30.8m) in 2019-2021.” Others have calculated that state-level funding of political parties in Jalisco will drop, relative to current levels, by 50% in election years, and by 70% in the years that are election-free. Kumamoto and his supporters have been campaigning under the hashtag #SinVotoNoHayDinero (‘Without a vote there is no money’). They suggest that Jalisco may set a positive example for the rest of the country: they claim activists are pushing similar initiatives in 29 out of the country’s 32 states.
Seen from the viewpoint of the established parties, #SinVotoNoHayDinero is potentially a deeply threatening initiative. A first attempt to stop it in its tracks was launched by the Partido Verde Ecologista de México (PVEM), a close ally of the federally ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI). The PVEM appealed to the SCJN arguing that the state congress of Jalisco did not have the authority to modify federal rules on the funding of political parties: in short, it held that the ‘Ley Kumamoto’ was unconstitutional. It was this appeal that has been turned down by the court in its 7-3 decision this week. The ruling makes it likely that other states may consider cutting back funding received by the parties active in their territories.
- ‘Kumamoto law’
Justice Arturo Zaldívar, who voted with the SCJN majority, said, “States must enjoy freedom to regulate the financing of national political parties, as long as the configuration they adopt is based on equity and stands up to scrutiny in respect of having objective rules that are applied to all parties”.