Tribune. In November 2015, I drafted, then tabled with the support of the Socialist parliamentary group to which I belonged, the proposed organic law “modernization of the rules applicable to the presidential election”, which became, following enrichment and adoption by Parliament , the Law of 25 April 2016. Among other adjustments – hours of voting operations, access to media for candidates, adaptation of campaign accounts, etc. – this text decided on the full publication of the names of the authors presenting the candidates, the famous “sponsorships”.
This provision is today stigmatized by various candidates, sometimes even in particularly strong terms. A rational analysis of the facts defeats their criticisms, however.
The first step was to respond to a request from the Constitutional Council. Indeed, since 1974, the latter has been in favor of the full publication of sponsorships in the name of equality between candidates. In his decision n ° 74-33 PDR of 24 May 1974, he wrote : “The presentation of a candidate for the election of President of the Republic is a serious political act. It is therefore important to surround him with all the necessary solemnity. To this end, there would be (…) to make public, for each candidate, the list of authors of the presentation. »
It is therefore what it does in the following elections, but by contenting itself with publishing, for each candidate, the names of five hundred sponsors, drawn by lot among all the validated sponsorships. Such a practice succeeded, as pointed out by Jean-Claude Colliard [1946-2014, juriste et membre du Conseil constitutionnel de 1998 à 2007], that in 2007, “A presenter by José Bové (503 selected) has a 99.4% chance, or risk, as you like, of seeing his name published; a sponsor of Jean-Marie Le Pen (554) 90.3%, while the rates are 14.3% for Ségolène Royal and 14.4% for Nicolas Sarkozy ” (The New Notebooks of the Constitutional Council, 2012/1, n ° 34). It was therefore useful to end this inequality.
Transparency requirement
Then, from the moment when, since 1962, the exercise of sponsorship has been a faculty entrusted to its holder by virtue of his election by suffrage, it seemed logical that his electors should be informed of the use he made of it. This was part of an expected transparency requirement.
Finally, since 2002, each presidential renewal has become the scene of an instrumentalisation of this collection of signatures. Candidates often from the extremes drummed loudly, arguing regarding their difficulties in reaching the five hundred threshold, thus artificially attracting the media spotlight with all the more cynicism since they already had a sufficient number of promises.
You have 54.01% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.