
AP
WASHINGTON — International election observers on Wednesday criticized the unlimited campaign spending seen during the U.S. presidential election, saying it raises questions of transparency about the U.S. political process.
Ambassador Daan Everts of the Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe (OSCE) called the lack of campaign spending limits and disclosure by corporations and unions something that, while rooted in the U.S. tradition of free speech, is a concern for voters.
“Free speech is something you shouldn’t touch, not in the states and not elsewhere,” Everts said during a news conference to announce his organization’s findings. “But having money spent is a political purpose and not having to disclose the origin of the funding, that seems to raise questions and has raised questions of transparency.”
The OSCE’s presence at U.S. polling sites across the country caused something of an uproar in recent weeks amid misleading reports that they were poll monitors from the United Nations. While the U.N. considers the group a “partner”, it had nothing to do with the OSCE’s election observation activity.
“I want to dismiss the notion that we are bunch of U.N. invaders from another planet,” Everts said. “We are very technical, professional, nonpartisan election specialists…doing the job that we have been doing for many, many years now in the countries of the northern hemisphere.”
As one of the organization’s founding participating states, the U.S. government has been inviting the OSCE to observe elections since 2002. This year, it deployed 44 observers to polling locations in 33 states but was blocked from doing so in eight others: Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas, deputy mission head Charles Lasham said. In Alaska and Tennessee OSCE officials were offered “controlled access” to voting sites, which they did not accept.”
Lasham said the decisions by states to block OSCE monitors happened at the local level, not by individual secretaries of state.
Everts blamed “misinformed news articles,” that gave state attorney generals “the misperception that we would be there to interfere, that we would act as challengers.” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in particular threatened to prosecute any observers who went near any polling location.
“It was a matter of quickly setting the record straight…we are not intervening, we are nonpartisan, we are professional and we always comply with [state] regulation,” Everts said.
As election observers, Everts said the OSCE’s mission is to make recommendations and hope they will be transformed into legislation. He noted the difficulty in generalizing about U.S. elections because everything is handled at the state and local level, though he offered praise for the U.S. electoral process on the whole.
“What we have seen is a general election taking place in a very open, very competitive environment and being well-administered,” Everts said. “Generally speaking, our firm impression is the electoral process seems to enjoy broad public confidence.”
Specific concerns noted, in addition to campaign finance, were voter list accuracy; lack of recount procedures in place; and voting rights.
Everts specifically mentioned the differing laws among states about restoring the voting rights of convicted felons.
“The international norm suggests that those who have served a sentence should be restored in all their civil rights, however in some states here the voting rights is permanently denied,” he said. “From a human rights point of view, that [is something that could hopefully change] before next election.”
While noting the controversy over voter identification laws, Everts didn’t offer a specific judgement on whether they were the right or wrong course to take, noting only the equal importance of integrity in the voting system and access to it.
“We consider that both are important, of course elections should be as fraud-proof, on the other hand it’s also very important to make it possible for people or even easy for people to cast their vote,” he said.
–
RELATED:

























































































































blair152
Nov. 8, 2012 at 2:56pmThe reason why we have elections on Tuesdays is a holdover from the 19th century. Prior to 1845, there wasn’t one election day. There were many election days. Election day prior to 1845, was anytime from September to November, and in 1845, Congress decided to have a uniform election day. Why November? Because it was two months after the end of the harvest. Why Tuesday? Because the United States was a more Christian country back then and Sunday was out because it was the Sabbath, Monday was out because there wasn’t enough time, and Tuesday was chosen because it was a travel day. It was the only day farmers could go to town. We were also a more agricultural country back then. It’s time to change election day. Let’s have it between Wednesday and the weekend.
Report this comment
bcope01
Nov. 8, 2012 at 4:51amAmericans can and will spend whatever they want!! Because we can!
Report this comment
harrysmallcraft
Nov. 8, 2012 at 5:41amWhy is it any of their business. Read fresh political commentary at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com/
Report this comment
Hank919
Nov. 8, 2012 at 3:46amTwo words for the “international observers”, and they are not happy birthday.
Report this comment
buckiesmith
Nov. 8, 2012 at 12:16amLooks like they are at the right place, the urinals.
Report this comment
Mottman
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:28pmGeorge Will once said that “Americans spend more on potato chips in a year than they do on the Presidential election”.
Report this comment
rickc34
Nov. 7, 2012 at 8:46pmFunny it sounds like he was critical of Obamas practices and it was Obama’s croonies that invited them.
Report this comment
soisay
Nov. 8, 2012 at 1:33amIt didn’t sound particularly critical of Obama’s practices, and wasn’t “invited in” by the current administration. Our relationship with election analysts has been ongoing for decades, and such advisory reports are the expected product. I think the indictment was against Citizens United, which concerns me but is without my having a constitutional solution to provide in its place.
Report this comment
historyguy48
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:27pmWho cares?
Report this comment
soisay
Nov. 8, 2012 at 1:30amMy various companies had outside auditors check different processes and writeup their findings. It is always good to have outside eyes. The SofS for Texas looked like a whack-job, as did Michelle Bachmann talking about the UN, or anybody saying the US was going to cede 2nd amendment rights. Any wonder our side lost?
I think these independent findings were reasonable and helpful. Why can’t Darrell Issa hold a hearing on election efficiency and consistency (especially recounts!) and have these guys testify along with some American eggheads on the logistics of elections? That would be a lot better use of our tax money than all the time wasted chasing after Holder. This might lead to something GOOD, and make us look like we are helping make things BETTER, and not just angry, crazy, democrat haters.
Didn’t we learn anything from the Clinton impeachment? No? Here we go again with Benghazi. Maybe the Dems will have a majority for a hundred years with the way we act when in the majority.
Report this comment
OldBoots
Nov. 8, 2012 at 8:26pmSOISAY!! So we should just bend over and let the government do as it pleases. We had Americans in harms way pleading for help and we let them DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps you should do a tour in the desert with the 7th century throwbacks, then you might find it more than just an inconvenience. You obviously feel it is on par with getting a BJ in the Oval Office by a girl your daughter age. Good Grief!!
Report this comment
Individualism
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:24pmgive the libertarians a billion and lets see what happens.
Report this comment
BlackCrow
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:20pmDid anybody explain to them that the only authority the Federal government has over elections is setting the date of the Federal election and the right of review and authority to reject any election rules in states subject to the voter rights act? Everything else is up to the States. But I am sure Germany has the same voting laws Spain has under the European Union (sarcasm font).
Report this comment
RaydocX
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:07pmUhm, who cares what outside observers say?
We cannot get agreement from our own fellow citizens that ID should be mandatory or that voting issues are unfair… there’s only cries of ‘suppression’ not recognition of ‘duplicate or deceased’ voting.
As to the money issue specifically, want to bet that BHO got a price break for the ads he ran vs. Romney? And how do you value the endless rainbow and sunshine description of one candidate and total pass on the same compared to the negative things said about the other candidate…
if the ‘outside observers’ are fair, the only way to protect the process would be to ban all mention of the election, candidates, or their histories/ platforms, except in pre-planned head to head timed meetings or question and answer sessions or debatess. And neither party nor the media will accept that.
Outside observers have their own bias… they can take a long walk on a short pier.
Report this comment
soisay
Nov. 8, 2012 at 1:45amIt was disclosed somewhere that BHO did get better pricing on ads in many cases, because he bought blocks of ad time early in the campaign by getting small donations early (no primaries = donations but no expenses) and identifying the battleground states (duh, florida, ohio, pennsylvania, colorado). Romney ran out of cash several times, and had to buy after the Dems, and SuperPacs had already picked over the available ad time.
Citizen United cant be overturned unless someone can come up with a constitutional framework for its replacement. Certainly not allowing corporations (possibly owned 100% by chinese or arabs) to donate to candidates or PACs could be done, by allowing only citizens. Certainly some labor laws about threatening employees with job loss if they fail to vote for one candidate may be considered “yelling fire in a theatre” and not protected speech.
Nowhere in Europe, or America, would anyone expect nobody to talk, post, or read about candidates. But it would be nice to have the short election cycles of European (and elsewhere) parliamentary governments, where the vote is called on the fly and set only several weeks in the future. Boy, would that be nice.
Report this comment
copatriots
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:06pmWelcome to the brave new world of U. N. Globalization of America. Did it even take 24 hours to advance the agenda?
Report this comment
soisay
Nov. 8, 2012 at 1:36amWhat are you smoking? This wasn’t the UN. Its been going on for decades. The US participates. It is run by eggheads and not political. The report should be taken up by Darrell Issa for a hearing, especially about recounts.
Trying to invent some Obama relationship with some boogie-man “UN takeover” makes us look untrustworthy to the very independent voters that we need to bring over to our side.
Report this comment
copatriots
Nov. 8, 2012 at 8:38amLive in denial much, SO? Nice try….spouting your ignorant attempt at moderation.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/07/us-arms-treaty-un-idUSBRE8A627J20121107
The first course of action with the newly flexible 0……disarm the American people who didn’t vote for him.
Report this comment
grayling646
Nov. 7, 2012 at 5:54pmPardon me but screw the foreign observers.
Report this comment
skinflint
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:33pmAgreed. Bite it and lemme help you out with my foot on your arse….
Report this comment
Cibolo
Nov. 7, 2012 at 5:52pmI believe in the inalienable rights provided to me by my creator, God almighty. These rights include and are not limited to the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I, and my family, hereby declare ourselves a sovereign community. We have a God given Birth Right to reside on the continent of North America.
sov·er·eign·ty
[sov-rin-tee, suhv-] Show IPA
noun, plural sov·er·eign·ties.
1.
the quality or state of being sovereign.
2.
the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty.
3.
supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
4.
rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
5.
a sovereign state, community, or political unit.
I will no longer support the corrupt, tyrannical, regime that has overthrown the US Government. Any act taken against my family or property will be considered an act of war!
Report this comment
Biff_Poindexter
Nov. 7, 2012 at 6:08pmI’ll take tin foil hats for 400 Alex….
Report this comment
soisay
Nov. 8, 2012 at 1:22amSpoken like a few hundred fellow Americans sitting in various jails, or shot, with their families destitute, injured, killed, or in the state protection system.
It is hard to remember that all Americans love America, the troops, first responders. That we all help our neighbors, pitch in during a crisis, and watch out for each other. People went crazy when Hillary Clinton said “it takes a village” as if it was some call of a Communist Manifesto, when it was exactly how American mothers have raised American children for two centuries.
We all need to unpack it a little, before somebody gets hurt, and start looking for solutions. Anybody that feels “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” will find that pretty much everybody is against.
Report this comment
U.N.hater
Nov. 7, 2012 at 5:40pmYeah you say this now after you donated and your guy won.
Report this comment