https://www.site/2018-06-15/rossiyskie_partii_na_75_finansiruyutsya_iz_byudzheta_biznesu_politicheskie_sily_ne_interesny

"Historical Record"

Russian parties are 75% financed from the budget, business is not interested in political forces

Kremlin press service

The parties "United Russia", the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and "Fair Russia" are financed by 75% from the federal budget, which has become a historical record. This is reported by the publication RBC, which analyzed the consolidated financial reports of the parties for 2017, published on the CEC website.

So, one vote of a voter who voted for one or another party that won more than 3% in the elections to the State Duma costs 152 rubles. Until 2006, a vote cost from 1 to 3.6 rubles, since 2009 - already 20 rubles, in 2015 the cost of a vote increased to 110 rubles. Parties whose candidate in the presidential elections received 3% or more of the votes receive a lump sum of 20 rubles for each of them. By the way, now State Duma deputies of all factions are in favor of indexing this payment, they want to equate it with the cost of voting in elections to the lower house of parliament.

United Russia's income decreased by more than one and a half times year on year (hereinafter, calculations adjusted for inflation by 2017), amounting to 5.4 billion rubles in 2017. The budget of the party in power for 80% consists of the federal budget. For comparison, in 2016, more than half of the party's annual income came from donations from companies and citizens. The financial dependence of United Russia on state money in 2017 is the strongest in the last 13 years. Previously, from 1-8 to 69% of party income came from the state budget. The dependence of United Russia on these revenues was minimal in 2005-2007.

The income of the Liberal Democratic Party in 2017 amounted to about 1.09 billion rubles. This is half of what it was in 2016 and the lowest in five years, despite increased government funding. The party depends on the state even more than United Russia: in 2017, almost 97% of the Liberal Democratic Party's income came from payments from the budget. This is a record figure for parliamentary parties. Never before has the Liberal Democratic Party been so heavily dependent on state subsidies. In 2005-2016, the "budgetary" component ranged from 4 to 75% of all its income. In the pre-election year 2011, the Liberal Democratic Party lived almost on donations alone (83% of all party income). In 2013-2014, donations accounted for more than half of the party's budget.

The income of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in 2017 amounted to 1.3 billion rubles, which is 1.7 times lower compared to 2016. In 2017, the party depended on budget payments by 80%. Over the past seven years, the party got rid of significant dependence on this money only in the pre-election years of 2011 and 2016.

The income of A Just Russia decreased by 3.3 times compared to 2016 - 667.8 million rubles in 2017). The party was the least dependent on the state budget in 2017 (75%). At the same time, over the past six years, the share of state injections in the budget of fair Russians has not fallen below 73%, with the exception of 2016, when it amounted to 44%.

Based on the results of consideration of the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2014 and for the planned period of 2015-2016, submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation, the LDPR faction comes up with the following proposals.

Proposals of the LDPR faction

to the draft resolution State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation "On the adoption in the first reading of the draft federal law No. 348499-6 "On the federal budget for 2014 and the planning period of 2015 and 2016" and on the main characteristics of the federal budget"

Based on the results of consideration of the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2014 and for the planned period of 2015-2016, submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation, the LDPR faction notes the following.

The main macroeconomic parameters of the forecast of social economic development RF for 2014-2016 contain indicators with overly optimistic data. If the LDPR faction has no objections to the forecast data on gas and oil prices, then the achievement of target indicators for GDP growth dynamics of 103.0% - in 2014, 103.1% - in 2015 and 103.3% - in 2016 is questionable. Argumentation of the Government of the Russian Federation on the revival investment demand and the growth of consumer demand clearly has significant risks of non-fulfillment.

According to the faction, investment growth in the planned period will have a significantly lower rate, which is due to a number of factors. In general, for the economy, these are the negative dynamics of public investment, the decision to withdraw the funded part of pension savings from NPFs, a plan to increase the tax burden on real estate, the introduction of a recycling fee on domestically produced cars, a proposal to transfer to Investigative committee RF powers to conduct business in the tax sphere, strengthening the competitive offer of foreign producers in connection with Russia's accession to the WTO.

For the sector of infrastructure companies and the oil and gas complex, the deterrent factors that further reduce investment activity will be the decision to freeze tariffs at the level of 2013 for enterprises, indexation of tariffs for the population by the inflation index minus 30%, an increase in the severance tax, a projected decrease in oil and gas prices, an increase in excises on oil products of the 4th and 5th class of environmental friendliness, as well as possible difficulties for companies in attracting financial resources.

In the consumer market, according to the faction, one should not expect an increase in activity in connection with the decision to freeze the level of wages for a number of categories of employees, the introduction social norms on electricity and plans to abolish cross-subsidization, which will increase the population's costs for housing and communal services, the projected increase in unemployment and problems with single-industry towns, the increase in tariffs of natural monopolies for the population, tougher competition in the labor market due to the curtailment of entrepreneurial activities of the self-employed. The strongest deterrent will be the tightening of the policy of lending to the population by commercial banks and microcredit organizations due to the excessively high level of debt load of the population today and the possible risks of mass defaults in the private lending market in the short term.

At the same time, it should be noted that the Government did not create any prerequisites that could radically change the situation with entrepreneurial and investment activity in the country's economy in the planning period compared to the current year. The reduction in the rate of insurance premiums in 2014 for the self-employed will not allow hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs who have already officially ceased their business activities to return to the legal sector of the economy. And the introduction of investment incentives for projects in the Far East, the introduction of a simplified system accounting for small businesses and some other decorative changes in the current legislation will not be able to noticeably affect entrepreneurial activity.

Statements by the Government about the expectations associated with the revival of the economy in the small business sector in connection with the introduction of a rule on the provision of a 15 percent quota for small businesses in connection with the start of the contract system in 2014 are also most likely groundless. Small businesses for the most part use a simplified accounting system, which reduces their chances of acting as a supplier of goods, works, services for companies that are VAT payers, as well as performing contract work for government needs using state elemental estimated norms. Similar problems are experienced by enterprises applying the single agricultural tax.

There is also serious concern about the RF Government's proposal to increase tax pressure in order to increase revenues to the state budget, in particular, on value added tax. According to PWC's Paying Taxes 2013 report, the aggregate average effective tax rate for business in Russia is over 54.1%, which is significantly higher than the tax burden in the European Union (42.6%) and in general in the global economy (44.7%). According to this indicator, Russia has already bypassed almost all major economically developed countries and came out on top in Europe. And the refusal of the Government of the Russian Federation to discuss the proposal of the LDPR faction to abolish VAT and replace it with a sales tax not only does not give entrepreneurs a clear message to improve the business and investment climate in the country, but also jeopardizes the possibility of fulfilling the federal budget in the planning period. It should also be noted that even now Russia is losing the competition for investments to its closest neighbors, for example, Kazakhstan, due to softer tax regimes. This circumstance in the most negative way can affect the financial position of the budgets of the regions bordering on such countries.

In addition, the conclusions of the Government of the Russian Federation on the share of revenues in the federal budget from the oil and gas sector at 57% in 2016 also raise serious doubts.

The predicted dynamics of changes in the indicators of federal budget revenues for income tax in connection with the clearly unfavorable economic situation and factors that are taken into account in the forecast also cause significant concern. socio-economic development of the country: this is the predicted decline in oil and gas prices, the negative dynamics of the foreign trade balance, the depreciation of the ruble, a sharp increase in the wage fund, a decrease in public procurement in the planning period, and an increase in the tax burden.

At the same time, the Government of the Russian Federation did not fully use the reserves for increasing the revenue side of the budget. In particular, the issue of limiting the possibility of using tax evasion schemes using offshore schemes in the domestic economy remains absolutely unresolved. Back in the summer, the Liberal Democratic Party introduced a bill that allows the state to take control of semi-legal and openly criminal methods of withdrawing funds, including from the federal budget, through low-tax jurisdictions.

The expected income from the privatization of federal property (3 billion rubles annually), as well as the expected income from the sale of shares of the largest companies (196.8 billion, 158.5 billion, 99.9 billion rubles) are negligibly low. In addition, questions arise about the advisability of budgetary investments and state participation in the capitalization of companies included in the privatization plan (RusHydro, Sheremetyevo International Airport, United Grain Company, Rosnano, etc.).

When drafting the federal budget, the Government of the Russian Federation practically did not work out a plan for using schemes for transferring large blocks of shares to a long-term trust as an alternative to privatization in conditions of unstable market conditions and a clear underestimation of state assets. At the same time, it is necessary to fix the profitability at a level higher by trust agreements. interest rates formed when borrowing funds. Such schemes could provide additional revenues and create prerequisites for more efficient management of state assets.

Profitability from the placement of funds from the reserve fund and the NWF remains at an unacceptably low level. In terms of the effectiveness of the use of funds, Russia is significantly inferior to foreign states that have created similar funds (the Pension Fund of Norway "Zarubezhye" and the Permanent Fund of Alaska).

The possibility of partial repayment of the federal budget deficit through more efficient management of state assets is also not considered - in particular, the possibility of partial assignment or early repayment of debts of foreign states and legal entities to Russian Federation.

The reserves associated with the launch of state lotteries are not fully used in the draft budget.

The tendency to increase the share of closed articles of the draft budget raises questions (24.8% of budget expenditures are secret).

As regards the expenditure side of the budget, there are serious concerns about the underfunding of entire sectors of the economy. The Liberal Democratic Party faction expresses its concern about the negative dynamics as a percentage of GDP for such important items of expenditure as Education, Healthcare, Culture, cinematography, Housing and communal services. At the same time, the share of spending on health care and education as a percentage of GDP in the Russian Federation is lower than in some CIS countries - such as Ukraine, Belarus and even Moldova. And in some areas, for example, such as air ambulance, funding is provided below any minimum requirements, which endangers not only the health, but also the life of Russian citizens - residents of remote territories.

The LDPR faction cannot agree with the proposal to abandon the indexation, taking into account the level of inflation (consumer prices), salaries of the military of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, as well as employees of the internal affairs bodies of the Russian Federation and other law enforcement agencies.

Against this background, the Liberal Democratic Party assesses extremely negatively the proposal of the Government to increase the level of salaries for federal officials in 2014 and notes that the limitation of the wage fund in federal departments, as well as the establishment of upper limits on remuneration of top managers in state-owned companies, companies with state participation, federal state unitary enterprise and others is a reserve for reducing federal budget expenditures, which was not used by the Government of the Russian Federation in the formation of the federal budget. At the same time, the volume of social guarantees, including monthly monetary remuneration, monetary incentives and other payments to the heads of federal departments cannot exceed the volume of similar guarantees of members of the Federation Council and deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, as provided for federal law No. 3-FZ.

According to the faction, when forming the expenditure part of the budget, the Government of the Russian Federation did not provide appropriations (or an obviously insufficient amount) for such strategically important sectors for the country's economy as "Machine tool industry", "Heavy engineering", "Aviation aggregate building", "Aviation instrument making", " Aviation Science and Technology”, “Small Aviation”, “Agricultural Engineering, Food and Processing Industry”, which threatens the economic, food and military security of the country.

The feed industry and the production of bioadditives for animals are not provided with appropriations, which, in the light of Russia's accession to the WTO, casts doubt on the competitiveness of the entire livestock sector of agriculture.

The faction also considers the level of funding for the activities of the GCSC network abroad to be insufficient, which undermines the international authority of the Russian Federation.

Due to the fact that the draft federal budget was for the first time formed according to the program-target principle, the LDPR faction expresses concern about the low quality of indicators of state programs and, first of all, the set of target indicators proposed by the Government. Thus, the state program 034 “Socio-economic development of the Far East and the Baikal region”, despite the goals specified in the program: “Creating conditions for the accelerated development of the Far East, turning it into a competitive region with diversified economy, improvement of social demographic Situation on the Territory of the Far East and the Baikal Region” in the list of indicators does not contain a single indicator related to demography, and the line “Share of manufacturing in the structure of GDP, %” contains figures for 2014-2016. without any positive developments.

In GP 027 "Development of foreign economic activity" - the indicators of the state program do not correspond to the parameters of the budget, in particular, in terms of the indicator "Growth rates of exports of goods in general."

GP 023 "Information Society" - the indicators do not reflect the priorities aimed at effective use budget funds. According to the faction, it would be logical to put the Russian Post's break-even mode as an indicator. And in GP030 "Energy Efficiency and Energy Development" add a social indicator that characterizes the dynamics of the population's attitude to the state's tariff policy for electricity.

We consider it timely and logical to include an indicator that characterizes the dynamics of labor productivity in the industry in each state program.

The non-transparency of managerial decision-making when choosing infrastructure investment projects for financing from the NWF is a source of concern.

Serious concerns regarding the execution of the consolidated budgets of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are caused by the transfer of additional powers to the constituent entities without proper support from appropriations from the federal budget.

In connection with the foregoing, the LDPR faction in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation proposes to include the following comments in the Resolution of the State Duma on the adoption of the draft law:

1. The degree of elaboration and comprehensive assessment of all the factors on the basis of which the forecast of the socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for 2013-2016 is built raises serious concerns about the failure to fulfill the main macroeconomic parameters taken as the basis when drawing up the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation for 2014 and for the planned period 2015-2016 years.
2. When developing the draft federal budget of the Russian Federation, the Government did not fully use the possible reserves for increasing the budget revenues (limiting the use of offshore schemes; increasing income from privatization and sale of shares of the largest companies; using long-term trust schemes for state assets; state lotteries, setting targets aimed at increasing labor productivity and bringing state-owned companies and enterprises to a break-even and non-subsidized level, etc.)
3. The strategy of the Government of the Russian Federation aimed at strengthening the tax burden on present stage development of the country can not be recognized as true. The tax burden in Russia has already reached its maximum possible value and does not stimulate the development of modern production with a high level of added value. The possible replacement of VAT by a sales tax could significantly accelerate the pace of economic development and increase the taxable base.
4. Underfunding of such industries as "Education", "Healthcare", "Culture, cinematography", "Housing and communal services", "Machine tool industry", "Heavy engineering", "Aviation aggregate building", "Aviation instrumentation", "Aviation science and technology ”, “Small aviation”, “Agricultural engineering, food and processing industry”, which threatens the economic, food and military security of the country and creates social tension in society. To provide budget allocations within the framework of the state program "Development of agriculture and regulation of the markets of agricultural products, raw materials and food" for the development of the feed industry and the production of bioadditives for animals. Propose to the Government of the Russian Federation to increase allocations for the operation of the GCTC network abroad.
5. When forming the expenditure part of the budget of the Russian Federation, the Government did not fully use the possible reserves for reducing costs (reducing the wage fund in federal departments, as well as setting upper limits on remuneration of top managers in state-owned companies, companies with state participation, Federal State Unitary Enterprise, etc.; allocation of budget allocations for companies included in the privatization plan).
6. When forming the sources of repayment of the budget deficit, the Government of the Russian Federation did not take into account the possibility of a partial assignment or early repayment of debts of foreign states and legal entities to the Russian Federation, as well as the attraction of temporarily free Money state-owned companies and companies with state participation.
7. Recommend to the Government of the Russian Federation to develop mechanisms to reduce the accounts payable of the subjects of the Russian Federation to commercial banks through the procedure for placing bonded loans and acquiring the subjects' securities at the expense of the NWF or alternative sources.
8. Refine state programs taking into account the comments made. Ensure transparency in the selection of infrastructure investment projects for financing from the federal budget or funds, take into account the maximum efficiency of such projects and return on investment.

Before the upcoming elections to the State Duma, political parties are activating resources to enlist voter support. However, the financial possibilities of the parties are very different. While some parties find it increasingly difficult to raise campaign money, others continue to thrive, primarily with state funds and sometimes with covert foreign funding. The experts of the "Voice" movement published a report on the sources of funding for the parties. Novaya Gazeta considered the study very curious and retells the most interesting.

State assistance

Now all parties that won more than 3% of the vote in the last federal elections can count on financial support from the budget. Only Yabloko crossed such a barrier among non-parliamentary parties at that time. The amount is calculated as follows: one vote in the last elections gives the political association 110 rubles of state funds for a year. (Before 2015, this amount was half that.)

The authors of the report point to a huge difference in income: United Russia in 2015 “earned” (not only from the budget) 5.18 billion rubles, which is 3-4 times more than the Communist Party, LDPR or A Just Russia and 20 times exceeds the income of Yabloko (250 million).

At the same time, 99% of Yabloko's income comes from budget funds, while United Russia depends least of all on state support - budget money makes up only 68.6% of its income.

Donors

According to the law, public organizations, foundations, private sponsors and companies can transfer funds to the party fund. At the same time, the latter often become participants in the so-called “hidden budget financing” scheme. What does this mean?

In the financial reports of political organizations, the names of companies that voluntarily donate impressive sums to the benefit of the party often appear. But it's not always just about supporting the course. Golos experts discovered a pattern: having become a donor to the ruling party, the company begins to regularly receive government contracts.

For example, Volgostalkonstruktsiya, which donated 500,000 rubles to the United Russia fund in 2015, received government contracts totaling more than 1.7 billion rubles. And the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, whose subsidiary donated 30 million rubles to United Russia, received 91 state contracts for a total of about 5.16 billion rubles in 2015-2016.

“Among the donor companies of political parties that received in 2015-2016. relatively large government contracts, more than 90% came from United Russia donor companies, the rest of the funds were received by legal entities that finance parties of a “patriotic” orientation, ”Golos experts say.

Foreign funding and private donations

In addition to grants and subsidies, some parties, contrary to the law, continue to receive money from foreign companies, the authors of the report say. Outwardly, such operations look legal: a company registered in Russia donates money to the party, which does not contradict the law, but sometimes it turns out that their ultimate owners in different time were offshore companies registered in Cyprus, the British Virgin Islands and the US state of Delaware.

Hidden foreign funding, Golos experts are sure, was received by United Russia, Just Russia and Rodina. In fairness, in some cases, part of the funds or the entire amount received was returned back to the donors. For example, out of 17 million donated by subsidiaries of the TNS Energo group, 2 million were later returned to one of the donors, and Mangazei Stroy, the ruling party, returned 1 million of the three million donation.

Large donations to the party are sometimes received from very specific individuals. For some, this item is the main source of income: for example, 80% (25 million) of the Civic Platform funds are donations from citizens. Of these, 5 people (including the political strategist of the party) transferred 21 million rubles. There are other cases as well. For example, a 19-year-old resident of Yekaterinburg supported the Communist Party of the Russian Federation with a contribution of 100,000 rubles, and in Karelia, three people aged 21-22 at once donated 73,000 rubles to A Just Russia.

What money is spent on

Experts are sure: b about parties must spend most of the money directly on political activity: propaganda, election campaigning, holding public events, etc. But in reality, of all the parties that have the right to nominate candidates without collecting signatures, only the LDPR adheres to this model, which has allocated almost 68% of its budget for this purpose.

Parties are more willing to spend money on the maintenance of central organs and regional branches. Over the past year, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation spent almost 60% of all money (860 million) on salaries for employees and renting offices, United Russia focused on the regions and allocated 45.5% for their maintenance (against 13.2% for salaries of the federal leadership).

Most of all, in percentage terms (55.6%) from the party budget, the Parnassus party spent on the maintenance of the governing bodies. The leadership allocated only 4.8% (472 thousand rubles) for campaigning and party events.

Opinion

Stanislav Andreychuk

“We will not see a completely direct relationship between the amount that parties have and their chances in the upcoming elections, because in addition to party finances, there are also election funds that are formed additionally. For example, according to the documents for the last year, Civil Force did not have a single ruble of income, and if it weren’t for the election fund, it’s not at all clear what money it will use for the elections.

United Russia and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation have large sums of money “stashed” for this year, and this gives them additional opportunities. In the long term, the "rich" parties, of course, have advantages: those who receive money from the budget will be able to expand their apparatus and maintain a regional network over the next four to five years. But how to spend this money is up to the discretion of each party.

Hidden foreign and state funding of parties is still a big problem, but compared to last year, the situation has improved.

After our last year's report, the Central Election Commission admitted that at some points they had not done enough and began to take measures. As far as I know, the current composition of the Central Election Commission has begun to deal with this topic: we have concluded an agreement with Rosfinmonitoring, the Federal Tax Service. The Central Election Commission does not have the authority to verify such information with its own hands, and from their previous answers, we understood that the tax authorities worked with the financial documents of the parties carelessly.

Alas, we do not have clear provisions in the law on where party funds can be spent. I think this is a question for a big discussion about how legal it is: why should we, the citizens of Russia who pay taxes, throw money off to support the leadership of several parties at once, for which we did not even vote in the elections? It turns out that we, albeit against our will, but at our own expense are breeding bureaucracy in political organizations.”

WHO FINANCING THE LDPR AND THE RIGHT?

Mikhail TULSKY

In the first and second parts of our investigation, we have already written about the sponsors of United Russia (ER), the Communist Party and Just Russia (SR). EP has three major official sponsors - the Mechel, Guta and Krasny Vostok groups.
However, in the official financial report EP in 2006 there are also branches of the largest monopolies - "Gazprom", "Rusala", "LUKOIL" And TNK-BP. The SR's main sponsor is the head of its faction in the State Duma A. Babakov, who heads the board of directors in the Russian Federation FC CSKA(his name is also associated "Tempbank" And market "Luzhniki"), and in Ukraine owns a dozen oblenergo. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the only party among the parties that lives mainly on membership dues and state funding, which account for almost 60% of the proceeds to the party fund. In addition, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and its deputies help: for example, deputies of the Moscow City Duma from the Communist Party N. Gubenko, S. Nikitin, V. Lakeev And V. Ulas back in December 2005, they decided to deduct 40% of the deputy's salary to the parties, and since then they have strictly observed it.

The party of V. Zhirinovsky is financed by everyone except Gazprom and Rosneft
The main part of the party fund LDPR(104.4 million rubles) were replenished by only 15 CJSCs and LLCs. But none of these legal entities has any fame, besides, they were established by unknown people (although often related). The author’s source in the Liberal Democratic Party explained that these LLCs serve to “disguise” the true sources of funding, including “most large companies, with the possible exception of Gazprom and Rosneft. Part of the money just comes from the Kremlin: in exchange for the fact that the Liberal Democratic Party, despite its opposition in words, in reality always votes the way the authorities need.

Big businessmen are leaving the Liberal Democratic Party, but crime remains?
When asked which companies were represented among the “disguised sponsors”, the source replied: “Look at those who became deputies on the LDPR list: which companies delegated their people to the list, they still finance the party.” Indeed, back in 2003, quite respectable and well-known people entered the State Duma on the lists of the Liberal Democratic Party. These are the deputies O. Deripaska by his companies "Rusal" And "Basic Element" E. Ivanov And V. Bobyrev, former Vice President "Alfa Bank" K. Vetrov(however, his source considers him not a protege of Alfa, but a nominee of the deputy head of the Kremlin V. Surkova), owner of company "Nafta-Moscow" S. Kerimov, former deputy director "Lukoil - Western Siberia» V. Tarasyuk and businessman A. Yeghiazaryan.
However, by now, many of the businessmen have moved from the Liberal Democratic Party to United Russia (ER): they have already joined the ruling party V. Bobyrev, K. Vetrov And S. Kerimov, leaving the Liberal Democratic Party for a "more solid party" does not exclude and E. Ivanov. Even in the previous composition of the Duma, the brothers also moved from the Liberal Democratic Party to the United Russia M. And S. Gutseriev who own BIN-bank And "Russneft".
What kind of sponsors in this case remained in the Liberal Democratic Party? Definitely remains - a mediocre lumberjack D. Shadayev(Deputy of the State Duma from the Liberal Democratic Party, his wife went on the list of the LDPR to the Leningrad Regional Duma in March). In the mid-1990s, he was imprisoned in Kresty on charges of illegal possession of weapons, and in 1998 a criminal case was initiated against Shadayev at the request of businesswoman G. Velkovich, whom he, together with Kazan authority Sasha Krupa, "under the threat of weapons" forced to re-register on itself TD "Torgservis". In 2003, the prosecutor's office opened a third criminal case against Shadayev - about "forgery of a diploma about higher education» . But all the cases were closed "due to the lack of corpus delicti" and "due to the expiration of the statute of limitations."
However, this is not the only example. It is widely known that the Liberal Democratic Party has always enjoyed increased popularity in the criminal environment. Even in the most recent Krasnoyarsk elections among the prisoners of the SIZO, 22.6% voted for the Liberal Democratic Party, which is twice as high as among the rest of the population(other opposition parties - "Fair Russia", the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Union of Right Forces - scored a percentage of prisoners 3-5 times lower than among ordinary citizens). Also, it was among the LDPR candidates that the largest number of citizens were found who were recently convicted and even wanted for theft, bribery, embezzlement and causing harm to health. Such cases were in Sverdlovsk, Murmansk, Omsk and other regions. Andin Omsk, 48-year-old S. Abramov was nominated on the list of the Liberal Democratic Party, who spent only 8 months of the last 22 years of his life in freedom. Since 1984, Mr. Abramov has been convicted 5 times for theft and robbery, and at the time of inclusion in the list of the LDPR in February 2007, the police were looking for him already for committing a new, 6th theft!
True, there are among the sponsors of the Liberal Democratic Party and two construction campaigns from Yekaterinburg: "Ural-Siberian" and "Ural-Baikal". The owner of the latter is the head of the Sverdlovsk Liberal Democratic Party V. Taskaev.

Chubais stopped financing SPS?
Sponsors THX- a number of business structures, among which there are not only RAO "UES", but not even a single oblenergo. However, this hardly means that Chubais stopped financing the Union of Right Forces, most likely here we are dealing with a "camouflage". After all, the largest amount in 5.9 million ATP received from Fund "Support for Democratic Unity". And this fund, in turn, is headed by a “Chubaisovets” V. Nekrutenko, who worked together with Chubais in the early 1990s at the State Property Committee.
Another considerable amount (3 million) was given to the Union of Right Forces by bills of exchange, its Khabarovsk chairman, a businessman A. Barzhanov. By the way, his ex-wife M. Barzhanova- Deputy of the State Duma from the United Russia: she used to be the leader of the Khabarovsk right, and at the end of 2001 she left for the United Russia (first becoming the deputy coordinator of the United Russia for the Far East, and then took up the Ulyanovsk region) and transferred the chairmanship of the Union of Right Forces to her husband. And in 2002, she also got a new husband, whom she found in the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation...

The main sponsor left the party of M. Barshchevsky
Major Party Donations M. Barshchevsky "Civil Force"(recently called "Free Russia") in 2006 contributed only 5 business structures. And behind them are only two businessmen. From 13.6 million founder of the party and chairman of its political council Sverdlovsk businessman A. Ryavkin contributed to the party's cash desk only 0.5 million And the rest 13.1 million in 2006 introduced the structure of the owner "Rostselmash" K. Babkin ("Social Initiative", "Eurostrategy" and etc.). Moreover, after Mr. Babkin deposited this money, he realized that he had been "swindled": having taken the money, Mr. Ryavkin immediately removed K. Babkin from the post of head of the party's executive committee. Now the main sponsor assures that will not give a penny more to the party of Mr. Barshchevsky.

"Democrats" received 6 million by deceiving V. Pokhmelkin
As for another dwarf party of the right flank - the DPR - it received all the large donations from individuals. They donated to her 10.3 million rubles, of which 6 million were contributed by six Perm assistants to deputy V. Pokhmelkin. It was in the summer of 2006 when Mr. Pokhmelkin wanted to go to the polls in Perm region on the DPR list. However, the leadership of the dwarf party, represented by A. Bogdanov, deceived the deputy: despite such substantial donations, it blocked the nomination of V. Pokhmelkin and his people on the DPR list and, as a result, supported Pokhmelkin's opponents from the Union of Right Forces. However, in the Krasnoyarsk elections, the DPR already fought against the Union of Right Forces together with the United Russia... And V. Pokhmelkin decided not to get involved with such "democrats" and "liberals" anymore and went to "Fair Russia".

BILLION TO ELECTION
The richest party was the Liberal Democratic Party

Mikhail TULSKY

As required by law, the Central Election Commission published information about the receipt of money in the election funds of parties created specifically for participation in the elections. So far, the most recent of the published reports of the Central Election Commission (and only two of them have been published) is the data for October 24. And it is already clear from them that only the official financing of the election campaigns of parties has already come close to a billion rubles.
The richest parties unexpectedly turned out to be LDPR headed by V. Zhirinovsky. The wealth of the party contrasts too clearly with the slogan “We are for the poor, we are for the Russians!”: apparently, therefore, the mention of the poor had to be removed from the new slogan of the party (it now sounds like “Good for the Russians - good for everyone!”). In second place, and this is already quite expected, is "United Russia". Together, the two parties controlled by the Kremlin and invariably voting for all government bills accumulated 520.9 million rubles. I.e 78% from 666.9 million collected by all 11 parties taken together for the election campaign (see table).
The rest of the parties are so far behind the United Russia and the Liberal Democratic Party that there is no doubt that these two pro-government parties will remain the leaders of the race in terms of the amount of funds attracted. But in which of them will still be the first, and who will be the second, a “castling” can still happen. The fact is that in the last couple of weeks the accounts of the Liberal Democratic Party have hardly been replenished: 28 September Zhirinovsky's party had 200 million, on the 10 October - 290 million, and on 24 October - the same 290 million(that is, not a penny of new funds was received in 14 days). But the "United Russia" business went uphill: more 10 October on her account (open only 8 October) there was not a penny, 12 October - already 200 million, but 24 October - 230.9 million
The receipts on the accounts of the other parties look good only if you do not subtract from them the money that many of them spent on electoral deposits. This pledge, which is the highest in the world in the Russian Federation, is 60 million rubles. It is the only guarantee of participation in the elections for a non-parliamentary party (the parties that won the last elections, according to the new law, are registered without signatures and collateral). An alternative to bail is the collection of signatures, but according to the new law, they should contain no more than 5% marriage (previously allowed 25% ). Such a percentage of marriage during a preliminary check at the Central Election Commission was found literally in all 7 parties that submitted signatures. But in the end, four of them persuaded the electoral commission to recognize some of the rejected signatures. And three more parties - "People's Union" S. Baburina, Peace and Unity Party S. Umalatova and the Greens were refused registration. That is why the more impressive parties prefer to make an electoral deposit, rather than signatures. Moreover, the deposit is returned by law after the elections to those who scored more 4% votes (that is, for the time being, only "Fair Russia").
So, minus the electoral deposits, even THX And "Fair Russia" against the backdrop of United Russia and Zhirinovites, they look like "poor relatives." And the Semiginsky "Patriots of Russia" who have only 0.9 million, and at all look beggars. However, these parties may still have time to replenish their accounts - more than a month is left before the elections. If they found money for bail, then they will probably be able to find them for the election campaign itself ...
Much more interesting is where the parties draw their financial resources. Official data rarely help to answer this question: in them, the sources of income are usually disguised as unknown funds and LLCs, behind which solid oligarchic empires often hide. Therefore, the real sponsors of the parties can be "calculated" only by the representatives of which large companies are present in their party lists.
For example, in the Moscow list LDPR both passing places were given to business representatives: the first - to the deputy director of Metalloinvest Tatyana Dubrovskaya(the owner of "Metalloinvest" Andrey Skoch is running on the list of "United Russia"), the second - to the banker Ashot Yeghiazaryan. Perm list of LDPR heads Konstantin Vetrov, before being elected to the State Duma, former vice president of Alfa-Bank, Volgograd - former deputy director of Lukoil - Western Siberia Vasily Tarasyuk, Kemerovo - co-owner of the mortgage and investment bank "Sochi" Arkady Svistunov. At the head of one of the LDPR lists near Moscow is the co-owner of the Moscow hotel "Ukraine" and the TC "European", one of the leaders of the community of Mountain Jews God Nisanov. And the second list near Moscow is headed by the owner of a number of construction companies (including those engaged in the restoration of Chechnya) Mikhail Khesin. And No. 1 of the LDPR list in Komi is a Leningrad timber merchant Damir Shadayev.
Even more respectable people are on the United Russia list: here is the head of the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works Viktor Rashnikov, as well as owners: Metalloinvest holding Andrey Skoch, "Industrial and Metallurgical Holding" Boris Zubitsky, gas producing company Novatek Leonid Simanovsky, chain stores "The Seventh Continent" Vladimir Gruzdev, food holding "Krasny Vostok" Airat Khairullin, Pervouralsky Novotrubny Plant Zelimkhan Mutsoev and Seaport of St. Petersburg Vitaly Yuzhilin. There are many representatives on the lists of United Russia "Gazprom", Lukoil, "Rusala", Severstal and other large companies.
But at CPRF And "Fair Russia" there are no big businessmen in the lists. Although there are many representatives of small and medium-sized businesses among the Socialist-Revolutionaries. IN CPRF however, only the head of the Belgorod list can be attributed to the number of any solid businessmen Sergei Muravlenko- a hereditary oilman, in honor of whose father a city in Yamal is even named (!). Until 2003, Muravlenko was chairman of the board of directors of the now-defeated Yukos, now he owns small stakes in a number of large companies. In addition to him, one of the Tatarstan lists of the Communist Party is headed by the co-owner of the little-known "Promregionbank" Andrey Ivanitsky(good friend Vladislav Surkov). And the second place in the Altai and Sochi lists is occupied by the owner of the equally unknown UIK Bank Alexey Bagaryakov and co-owner of Novoroskhlebkonditer Dmitry Shishov.
There are few businessmen on the lists of other parties, because business usually seeks to invest in campaigns of passing parties and does not see much point in helping those who obviously do not get more than 1% in the elections. Unless these are businessmen who "decided to play politics" and created their own party. So, for example, did the Sverdlovsk businessman Alexander Ryavkin, which registered 5 years ago on the basis of its holding for the production and distribution of massagers "Denas" Network party of small and medium and business, recently renamed to "Civil Force"(the first place on her list, Mr. Ryavkin gave M. Barshchevsky).

Receipts to the electoral funds of parties(according to the data of the Central Election Commission as of October 24, 2007), million rubles