PCP
The threshold begins with spending
Federal rules cover election and referendum campaigns spending more than CHF 50 000. Parties represented in the Federal Assembly and independent parliamentarians also have annual obligations. This is not public accounting for every political activity in every municipality.
Expenditure differs from receipts. The threshold determines reporting duties; receipts tables then show declared resources by category. Inferring that a campaign falls below the threshold from one receipts column can be wrong. The table’s nature and campaign scope require checking.
Council of States campaigns have a specific rule: reporting concerns elected candidates. The PCP calls for this distinction in electoral comparisons. An absent declaration does not automatically prove either absent funding or a breach.
Naming large donations does not make every contribution public
Donations exceeding CHF 15 000 are declared by name. Not every contribution therefore appears with its author. Categories include money and non-monetary support; materials or services can have political value without a bank transfer.
The PCP supports understandable categories where several organisations participate. Common campaigns should not make resources unreadable. Interpretation must follow common-campaign rules rather than an improvised sum of every actor sharing an opinion.
Before and after the vote, figures have different meanings
Budgeted receipts appear before a referendum; final receipts afterwards. On 28 August 2026, the SFAO published final figures for campaigns concerning 14 June,75 days after the vote. Comparison with earlier announcements requires the same ballot objects and actors.
A budget variance does not itself prove concealment. Contributions and activity can evolve. It should nevertheless be explainable. Version, date and provisional or final status must remain visible, otherwise two accurate figures become a misleading comparison.
Publication is distinct from review
The SFAO receives, reviews and publishes declarations. Actors remain responsible for accuracy. A visible entry therefore does not mean every line has exhaustive certification.
Announcements identify reviewed campaigns and the share of receipts examined. This reveals supervision and its limits. The PCP supports adequate review resources and clear status information, without suspending publication until every detail has been checked.
A total does not prove what caused a result
Money buys posters, content and distribution, expanding opportunities to communicate. Votes also depend on convictions, mobilisation and substance. Correlation between resources and success does not alone demonstrate the effect of spending.
The PCP nevertheless regards unequal resources as a democratic issue even when a wealthy campaign loses. Visibility and the ability to answer opposing arguments shape debate. Transparency supports examining these conditions without equalising them.
Comparisons require a common scope
Annual party receipts and a referendum committee’s budget do not necessarily finance the same duties. Adding transfers between organisations can count one resource twice. Analysis must distinguish donations received, own funds mobilised and means actually assigned to a campaign.
The register does not describe the entire media environment. Editorial support, organic reach and volunteer work are not simply advertising purchases. These differences can be discussed without inventing monetary values for every contribution to debate.
Declared revenue should also not be presented as money already spent.
Make information usable by citizens
Open data need stable categories, visible corrections and retrievable documents. The PCP supports usable exports, clear explanations of changes and links between budgets and final accounts. Understanding should not require manually reconstructing multiple versions.
Protection of people remains important within the law. A published large donation does not justify disclosing private information unrelated to scrutiny. Criticism should address resources, declared origins and possible effects, not harassment.
Transparency supports equality
The PCP supports debate where labour organisations and residents can present arguments without depending on the largest fortunes. This requires accessible participation, good public information and adequately enforced disclosure.
The register enables specific questions: which resources, when, from whom and within what scope? It replaces neither discussion of texts nor voters’ judgement. Its democratic value is making part of financial power visible for assessment through facts rather than assumptions.