In my plans I had to finish the text wall (in a high-five will appear), but 1 subject I wanted to rise earlier, due to the fact that he has been following me for any time, and it would be appropriate to mention it before the election. It will be a note in which I will go from the item (a run involving Action Democracy) to the general public (a multi-year observance of electoral law by anyone who can afford it).
The perfect starting point for this note will be a situation you have most likely heard about many times before the first round. Well, it just so happens that any fanpejje-crow abruptly started spaming with election agitation. If it were to be that individual simply urges to vote on whether or not and not to vote for the laugh, then most likely there would be no problem. This problem is due to the fact that individual in this peculiar agitation (I usage this term, although in the remainder of the text you will be able to see that it is mildly speaking, vaguely precise [to be exact, I am not referring to the definition itself, but to how it is interpreted]), he pumped immense money (in full it was about PLN 400,000).
NASK was besides active in the full case, but its action (or alternatively refraining from action) is not related to agitation as such, so I will not harass it. On the another hand, I find it unspeakably amusing that the United Right who treated NASK as a private PR agency (for example, what Poles think about the Moravian government) abruptly breaks hands about the fact that now NASK will be unbelievable.
All right. It all started with an article in Virtual Poland (i.e., earlier NASK wrote that there was any interference in the elections, but there were fewer details) in which 400K PLN was spent on the spots and that the Action Democracy involved. As for this Action of Democracy, it was explained in the article that they initially claimed that they absolutely didn't know anything about it, but erstwhile they were confronted with the statements of the actors that AD had arranged to participate in the spots, they abruptly remembered that no yeahaak, in fact, but it was about the pro-research activities and they in this Action of Democracy did not know what was going on there. And even more later, it turned out that with any of these spots there is simply a problem, that individual had to give the authors of this peculiar action editable versions of the spots that the politicians of KO posted. And I will halt there, but I reserve that it was a telegraph shortcut, due to the fact that it's been going on for a while. It is worth noting that both Action Democracy and Trzaskovsky's staff cut themselves off from this peculiar action. Only that even in the context of this telegraph abbreviation, this ‘cut-off’ sounds medium-believable.
Of course, the voices were immediately raised that this was illegal agitation, illegal run backing and so on and so on. Representatives of the United Right spoke loudly on this subject, who submitted a announcement to the prosecutor's office (which, of course, they had the right), while Marcin Warchoł stated that he hoped that the fact that the election run was being financed illegally would make the PKW reject the financial study of Trzask's staff. And that is what made me compose this text.
Now it is time for a digression. As shortly as these spots got public, I asked Eloneks, is it not by chance that, in light of the changes in the Electoral Code introduced in 2018 by the United Right, specified action is not legal? In order not to prolong: prior to the changes (the intent was to remove the comma) the agitation (legally supposed) could be handled after obtaining the approval of the committee's representative. After the comma was removed, the recipe became ambiguous, as it indicated that any voter could agitate himself (we will decision on in a moment) and he did not gotta inform the typical of the election committee. A malicious individual would compose here: why would specified a change be made? And this evil 1 will be answered by individual patient: in a minute it will become clear.
At the minute the voices (or few) rose, due to the fact that I am wrong: this provision concerns the electorate, and the foundation or any organization cannot be the electorate. due to the fact that I didn't have much time to investigation at the time, I just wrote that my definition and my practice. In addition to this argument, "ad electoral" came up with another: the action was financed from abroad, so it is illegal under the rules. And there would be a point of attachment, but there is no clear evidence that the money for this intent was coming from abroad (and that the “leaders” of the fanpaedia were legitimizing Polish evidence).
Someone could say at this point that it's not truly applicable where the money came from, due to the fact that we're dealing with illegal run funding, and surely illegal agitation. As 1 of the protagonists of 1 of the masterpieces of cinematography utilized to say (yes, it is “Smolensk”), “it is not simple, but even the opposite.”
At this point it is time for another digression, due to the fact that I want to be well understood: I absolutely do not defend the Action of Democracy, nor the RT staff. I believe that this kind of action is PiSowski's standard and I require a small more from the non-PiSwowska side than from the United Right (because I require absolutely nothing from it).
Look out! An article sponsored by Sovereign!
https://patronite.pl/Piknik-on-country-g%C5%82upoty
Let's start with what agitation is. Under Article 105, paragraph 1: "Electoral agitation shall be to publically encourage or encourage a circumstantial vote, including in peculiar a candidate vote for a circumstantial election committee." Okay, I'm not a lawyer, but at 1 time I was writing a master's degree in which I had to specify the concept of "persuasion" and I had to make certain that the definition did not sound like this: "it depends." This is precisely the same thing. The definition is clear, but for the sake of a non-existent transcendent being, what does "inciting" mean? due to the fact that it just so happens that there's quite a few different ways to encourage. 1 can, for example, praise one's candidate or criticize "enemies" candidates.
Okay, I'll admit to you that at this point, I was going to have a small theoretical, so you don't know what's going on from the beginning, but about half the paragraph that took me half a page, I figured it didn't make sense, so I'm going to compose it right away. Let's take 500 plus. The United Right from the minute she introduced it explained that as shortly as they lost the election and won the PO, 500+ will definitely be picked up. Now let's jump to the 2023 election campaign, during which "family picnics" were organised for public money, on which the 800+ was told. Now let us go back to "inciting" and think about whether, in the context of what the Law and Justice said about 500+ (and then 800+) and what did it scare the sovereign for almost 8 years, this can be considered an inducement? But of course, you can and even request to, due to the fact that if the Law and Justice Department felt that this would not convince anyone to do anything, it would not organize these events.
What was my deficiency of surprise erstwhile I read into the justification for rejecting PiSu's financial statements and it turned out that PKW was reasoning completely differently. Yes, possibly 2 of these picnics appeared in the justification, but due to the fact that (fasten your seat belt) there was an electoral agitation on them.
In general, it is worth mentioning at this point that PiS has not been dropped by the study for illegal run financing, but for the fact that PKW stated, ‘that certain actions taken by entities another than the Law and Justice Election Committee are of a non-monetary nature, and that those actions by entities and persons closely related to the political organization of Law and Justice (the same with the Committee), the Committee's cognition of those actions and its deficiency of consequence to actions carried out in an apparent manner to it mean the acceptance of those benefits in breach of Article 132(5) of the Electoral Code’.
And that's where we get to what we call quantum state. Well, in the calculation that appeared in the justification of PKW, we can find specified a pearl as: "the production and issue of an advertising movie with the participation of the then Minister of Justice, which paid the Ministry of Justice (the value of PLN 2,627,920.00, as specified in the letter of the Minister of Justice),".
Ok, if PKW considered it a non-monetary asset advantage, then it is apparent that we had to deal with electoral agitation, due to the fact that someway I did not find in this justification of appeals to commercials of powders and electrical cars of Izer (I apologize, I had to). So it is agitation, but it is not, due to the fact that only the voter can agitate, and the Ministry of Justice according to the bill – the voter is not.
All right, but before the PKW issued specified a decision, not another decision, the lawyer had the chance to address these allegations. Yes, he did, and he did. And to the surprise of absolutely no one, he referred to the amended Article 106. Of course, he didn't say, "Hey, shut up, you have this article here and eat it." no of these things, he stated that “he did not take work for specified actions due to the fact that he did not consent to them.” And now I guess no 1 can uncertainty why the United Right changed the 2018 electoral code. Incidentally, in the justification of PKW, 1 could besides read that the proxy knew about all these activities and did not respond to them.
The continuation of this communicative is known. The United Right began to talk about persecution, Rafał Woś about the fact that individual was trying to starve the largest opposition party. Understandably, all these statements did not gotta do with why the PiS got caught. It is besides understandable that PiS then ran for aid to the illegal ultimate Court Chamber. Because, you know, there may have been a legal chamber on the subject of the subsidy, but then there would be a hazard that the decision might not have been the superb Stratega's idea.
To be honest, I'm not amazed that the United Right acts like this. That is, that on the 1 hand he howls in the sky, due to the fact that they did not accept their accounts (and calls it persecution) and on the another hand, the same "persecution" demands for his competitors. What don't you understand?
Let's go back to that Facebook run where it all started. Was it a violation of the law? Considering how PKW interprets the Electoral Code, it can be said that "damn knows". It may have been different: it was surely not entirely legal, but on the another hand, the staff of Trzaskovsky cut off from these activities. And I know that I wrote earlier that this was an unreliable action, but on the another hand, unless the typical of the PiSu electoral committee was able to convince anyone that he did not know that, for example, from the public registry an election event of Jadwiga Emilewicz was organized, then the typical of the Trzaskovsky Staff could effort to argue that he did not know about this action.
Does that mean the RT staff won't get their hands on it? I don't know, but it's a very likely scenario. All thanks to the fact that the electoral law, which had already been hollow (and in no way fitting to the present times), thanks to PiS has become even more hollow. And, of course, we should anticipate non-PiS to apply another standards, but I think it would be better to effort to seal the rules.
Because now we are surviving in realities in which money can be pumped from the cholera in alleged "pre-campanic actions", due to the fact that these actions because, well, they are held before the campaign, are not subject to PKW control. In another words, if individual pumped into the alleged "pre-campanic" fartillion of coins, he wouldn't get a hair off his head. Does this mean that those who have more money now have better chances in elections? Yes, it is. It's not expected to work like that, is it? The fact that there should be more than a failure of part of the subsidy to pump public money into campaigns is most likely not necessary. As much as the fact that the restoration of this unfortunate comma in Article 106 is an absolute minimum, something tells me that no 1 will be eager to do so.
I was about to finish this line, but I remembered something. Well, we have a long past of circumventing electoral law. So long that I mentioned it in 1 note over 10 years ago. In this note, I bullied the text of Caesar the Gmyz, who complained that the PSLs and Platformers were putting up billboards with their mouths (of course, it was the "inter-election period"). And it's all beautiful, but at the same time, in my hometown of Akwen precisely the same billboards of Tomasz Poręba hung. The same Cezary Gmyz most likely spent the 2005-2007 word under ice and did not remember the spot-all-non-elections that PiS released a fewer months before the local government run in 2006. The practice of circumventing electoral law has a very long history. Now this law is done with another tools.
And with this, it is not known what accent I will finish the above text and go back to picking on another pre-election wall of text.
Source:
https://x.com/tvp_info/status/1923301007997415433
https://pkw.gov.pl/uploaded_files/1725025956_kw-pis.pdf
2014 note (in which you can
to watch at all-no-spot-choice PiSu with
2006):
https://piknik-on-country-glupots.blogspot.com/2014/02/uncensors-in-susbie-pis.html
