Clean ! The Monitoring of Candidates’ Integrity for the European Elections 2019 Romanian Academic Society (Secretariat) -www.romaniacurata.ro , May 20, 2019

How do Romanian candidates for elections fair on integrity? This is a legitimate question in a country where corruption has been the sole campaign topic and even a referendum is organized simultaneously with elections for EP asking the voters to declare themselves against amnesty for corrupt acts and government ordinances on criminal policy. The referendum has been proposed and promoted by President Klaus Iohannis, ex head of National Liberal Party (PNL), whose electoral rally he also attended in the current campaign. The voting is organized by the government, who is in bitter opposition to Mr. Iohannis and is shared between Social Democrats (PSD) and the liberal splinter ALDE. A new anti-system party, 2020 USR+ (Alliance 2020 Save Romania Plus) has also called for a referendum to ban from running in elections candidates with prior criminal convictions and rally for a renewed political class with top integrity credentials. And now the fact checking. Since 2004, the Coalition for a Clean Parliament (CPC), part of the Alliance for a Clean Romania Alliance (www.romaniacurata.ro), has monitored all elections on the integrity of candidates. The criteria were established with political parties and occasionally integrity contracts were signed. Historical monitoring can be seen here http://www.romaniacurata.ro/liste-negre/ and was covered by the national and international media. For the 2019 elections a total of 86 integrity candidates were monitored as follows:

➢ 11 (the first placed on lists) from parties credited with chances to exceed the electoral threshold according to opinion polls (PSD, Alliance 2020 USR PLUS, PNL, ALDE, PMP (party of former President Traian Basescu), Pro Romania and UDMR (Hungarian Alliance)) - a total of 77 candidates. Although their chances are different, we have decided that for the comparison of party lists this regime is preferable, so that the number of candidates with integrity problems in the first 11 is the criterion of comparison.

 The first candidate on the list of parties that according to surveys will not pass the electoral threshold (PRU, PSDI, PRODEMO, BUN, PSR and UNPR) - a total of 6 candidates.

 Independent candidates - 3 candidates in total.

The criteria used were those traditionally established and verified with political parties and opinion polls since 2004, when the first Coalition for a Clean Parliament was held, namely:

1. Undue profit from connection with a public authority, for example as a recipient of public contracts (when those outweigh the profit from private business-business transactions in the firm's economy) or inconsistent wealth to the transparent income sources; 2. Academic fraud and cheating. 3. Indictment for corruption or other criminal offenses. 4. Nepotism (promotion of relatives using public influence and any personal profit resulting violation of public-private separation in the exercise of public office). 5. Political migration (belonging to multiple parties, starting from the third upwards to get or keep office). 6. Autonomy from secret services. This criterion is transformed from the older collaboration with the former Ceausescu’s Securitate. In a democracy, civilians control secret services, not vice versa, and the sponsorship of some politicians by the secret services is as abnormal as their blackmail by those services. 7. Discriminatory attitudes towards minorities. This criterion has already been introduced in previous elections, and it has been given even greater weight here as it is about European elections. Candidates with stringent problems have been classified as having integrity issues. Mentions have also been made to some of the candidates who do not correspond fully to one criterion only. Assessments are based on the information available at this time in the public space and can be updated it new information reaches us.

The CNSAS, Romania’s official secret service archive screening authority failed to send timely verification of the candidates. The National Integrity Agency ANI, which should by law check undue profit has also not produced a screening. 15 years after the first Coalition for a Clean Parliament and our activism in creating ANI and defending CNSAS from political attacks we still can not rely these state bodies to objectively and timely take on this role of monitoring integrity from civil society.

Below the conclusions of the general analysis.

PSD- A minimum of 6 candidates in the top 11 have integrity issues PNL - A minimum of 9 candidates from the top 11 have integrity issues. ALDE - A minimum of 6 candidates from the top 11 have integrity issues 2020 USR-PLUS - A minimum of 6 candidates in the top 11 have integrity issues PMP A minimum of 6 out of 11 candidates have integrity issues. Pro-Romania () A minimum of 4 out of 11 candidates have integrity issues. UDMR - Minimum 1 candidate from the UDMR list may raise integrity issues. There were no problems of integrity with the three independents, and the presumed parties below the threshold of three have integrity issues. Some of the black-listed candidates are top of their lists. For instance, Rovana Plumb (SDP, the Roșia Montană affair), Rares Bogdan (PNL, fuzzy border between independent and sponsored talk-shows), Dacian Cioloș (2020, insufficient autonomy from secret services, Norica Nicolai (ALDE, past problems as a prosecutor), Traian Băsescu (PMP, charged by CNSAS as having been a Securitate informant, nepotism, undue profit from office), pro- Romania (Victor Ponta- plagiarist, lost his PhD). Voters are given a difficult choice if any good choice at all. If we consider candidates in these elections, the division of Romanian parties into "criminal" and "anti-criminal", or pro and anti-justice is not clearly justified by the facts. The most vociferous parties in supporting the presidential referendum against corruption would have done better to set an example through the integrity of their lists. They do not do better than their opponents. PNL does even worse.

As for the general offer of the Romanian political class in these European Parliament elections, the situation is this:

POLITICAL MIGRATION 10% NEPOTISM - 30% PREFERENTIAL STATE CONTRACTS - 27% OBSCURE FORTUNE - 26% enjoy wealth from non-transparent sources. AUTONOMY FROM SECRET SERVICES - 35% had relations with intelligence services in one form or another (a huge number of future MEPs have prepared for the European Parliament by studying at the Romanian security “academies”); DISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDES 30% have entries in this box. CRIMINAL LIABILITY - 11% have or have had at some point problems with the law incompletely clarified.

Adding to the above we find 41 percent with other integrity claims, such as academic fraud, fines for dishonest behavior, sanctioned incompatibilities, etc.

These are the only CPC lists edited and verified by our institution, which had been published without interruption since 2004. Fake ‘black lists’ without criteria and refereeing copying the label are produced and circulated by parties or groups closed to parties and published in partisan media. We expect professional media to submit such fake monitoring to careful scrutiny.

This list is an act of public information. Clean Romania does not claim that any of the candidates with integrity issues is "corrupt" or "criminal", but it is its civic duty to contribute to the informed vote of the citizens. Any new relevant information will be taken into consideration.

Full monitoring here http://www.romaniacurata.ro/liste-negre-romania-curata-europarlamentare- 2019/ (Chair- Alina Mungiu-Pippidi; Team Director – Cristian Ghingheș. Queries at [email protected] or 0212111477).