18 | - Número: 009 | 24 de Novembro de 2012

today’s statement.
I would also like to thank my friend and Italian colleague, the current President of the OSCE, Riccardo Migliori, for having entrusted me with this mission.
My colleagues and I were received very well by the authorities in charge of the elections. We had full access to polling stations and received all necessary information in the states and the District of Columbia that we deployed to. We all were impressed and delighted by the friendly and hospitable atmosphere we encountered.
These elections were yet another demonstration of the country’s commitment to democracy. However, the unprecedented and often negative role played by private campaign financing has a potential to impact negatively on the fairness of the process. There also were a number of other concerns the OSCE has already outlined in previous reports, among them a partisan controversy about possible voter suppression.
On the other hand, all issues observed are subject of intensive public debate in the US and of court decisions. They have also been addressed by academia, most prominently in the 87 recommendations of the 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, the so-called Carter/Baker-Commission.
After a generally peaceful, but highly polarized, often ideological campaign divided along lines of race, ethnicity or religion, voters were given a genuine opportunity to make an informed choice between the presidential candidates of the Democratic and the Republican parties and their candidates for the House of Representatives and the US Senate.

On Election Day, citizens cast their votes in a calm and orderly manner. In a number of polling stations there were at times long lines of voters waiting patiently for their turn and there were also a number of cases of overcrowding inside the polling stations, which were handled in a disciplined and suitable manner.
The fact that electoral legislation in the states has become an issue of party controversies, with one side of the political camp accusing the other of wanting to misuse legislation for partisan purposes, has a tendency to reduce voter confidence in the process. Also, while conceding that most of the process is handled within the law, we have heard analysts who regard many of the existing systems of election administration, voter registration and voter identification as largely inadequate and confusing.
The issue that worried us most is the role of big money in these elections.
The pertinent US Supreme Court decisions “Citizens United” and “Speech Now.org” have had an even stronger effect on elections than any piece of legislation in the past years.
As a consequence, the 2012 elections are considered to have been the most expensive elections in the history of the US. Presidential and congressional candidates have received 4 billion dollars in direct contributions. It is estimated that almost 6 billion US dollars have been spent on the presidential campaign alone. Although spending has been high also in previous campaigns, the Supreme Court decisions have led to greater influence by outside money and less control by the candidates and parties. While this did not yet create an uneven playing field between the two major presidential candidates, it is considered by many analysts as having a potentially negative effect on the political independence of elected officials.
The avalanche of paid advertisements contributed to the tense and in many instances dirty campaign environment, often without the degree of transparency (“effective disclosure”) that the Supreme Court had asked for. According to estimates a quarter billion US dollars of campaign spending have not been disclosed. Misleading advertisements and billboards, in particular when coming from undisclosed sources massively confronting voters late in the process, can impact negatively on the possibility for voters to make an informed choice.
Although guaranteeing a free and pluralistic media environment, this environment is as polarized as is the Consultar Diário Original