[sebastianz]

> If i pay some money to google to run some ads for the 2 main parties, and don't report it, do they also get disqualified?

If you pay money to run electoral ads, for someone's campaign, this money has to be declared, and the ads should be marked as such.

In this case, neither has happened.

TikTok also did not ban these bot networks as they should have according to the electoral laws, so there will be a separate investigation that I think the EU commission has started to find out why they are not complying with electoral laws in the countries they operate in.

[jdasdf]

I see you didn't answer the question i asked (probably because it would make it obvious how untenable your argument is), so I will ask again.

If i pay some money to google to run some ads for the 2 main parties, and don't report it, do they also get disqualified?

[avianlyric]

Probably depends on how much money you spend. But spend enough and at a minimum it’ll be considered election interference (the exact rules depend on the country). If there’s evidence the candidate that benefited collaborated with you in any way, then it’s likely they’ll face sanctions as well.

Europe is like the U.S. We don’t have Political Action Committees here, or anything similar. Political campaigns, particularly in the lead up to an election, are tightly controlled and limited to ensure candidates have to compete on an even playing field. They can’t just try and outspend their competitors.

Heck in the UK, it’s illegal for political campaigning to occur outside the few weeks before an election. Obviously politicians will do everything they can to demonstrate their value to the people all the time. But they can’t engage in explicit campaigning, with calls to actions about how to vote, outside of the time limited campaign period. It’s all done to keep as much money as possible out of our political system, and prevent our politics becoming ruled entirely by money, like we see in the U.S. Hell there recently been huge controversy in the UK because out PM accepted some clothes (literally a few suits) from a party donor, and that was considered as being potentially illegal campaign support.

[Amezarak]

In the US, the past 2 of 3 Presidential elections were won by the candidate + PACs who spent less money.

[avianlyric]

U.S. presidential elections regularly result in campaign spending measured in billions of dollars per side. In the UK spending is capped at just £53,000 per constituency, which means a total of £34m of spending for a party with candidates in every constituency.

Campaign spending in the U.S. is literally two orders of magnitude greater, the fact that someone wins while only spending $2billion rather than $3billion really doesn’t say that much. Musks contributions to Trump alone are an order of magnitude greater than the total spend allowed for an entire party in the UK.

[sebastianz]

I have no idea, but if you illegally want to get someone elected as president in a foreign country, I suggest talking to a very smart lawyer, not to a rando on hacker news :)

[theultdev]

He's not talking about getting someone elected, the inverse actually.

An analogy would be buying github stars or reddit upvotes for an adversary to get them banned.

[xuhu]

It all depends on whether the candidate asked for the help.

[theultdev]

Okay, so where is the proof he asked for the help?

[xuhu]

https://snoop.ro/cazul-bunelu-firma-sustinatorilor-lui-georg...

Explains the money trail, and there's even a nice picture with one of the sovereign candidates and the Tracia Unita group who paid for the campaign.

[wyager]

> If you pay money to run electoral ads, for someone's campaign, this money has to be declared, and the ads should be marked as such.

Do you really think this makes sense as a justification for a court to depose a candidate, or are you just being disingenuous for rhetorical purposes?

If we actually apply your logic as stated, then anyone could unilaterally "disqualify" any candidate by buying political ads on their behalf and not reporting the ads.