MOSCOW — Until recently, election fever in Russia was like a gold rush. As political campaigns began to follow Western models and became increasingly sophisticated in the 1990s, a campaign for one candidate for the Duma cost about $100,000. Unofficial sources claim that at the 2003 elections this figure soared to more than a million dollars.

But even this figure seems to be no limit. A vast number of tycoons from big energy companies, banks, and industrial giants were lining up to offer money to the leaders of major political parties, in return for the party guaranteeing the interests of its sponsor in proportion to his contribution, or by ensuring adoption by the government of laws and resolutions required by the sponsor.

Huge companies usually placed their bets on several parties. Party officials admit that Yukos had bought a controlling share of votes in the putative Duma long before the elections. The oil major's plan to buy power, however, was thwarted by the Prosecutor General's Office.

Those days are gone, and parties no longer receive bags of money.

Their former sponsors have learnt a lesson from the Khodorkovsky-Lebedev case, and even more importantly have become disenchanted with politicians: More often than not, the terms of public and tacit agreements have not been honored. As a result, political parties have much less money, while right-wing, Liberal functionaries are even complaining of "abject poverty."

The parties' wealthy life has been disrupted by their colleagues in the United Russia party.
But such concern on behalf of the government does not make the parties happy. This money is not enough even for a moderate life, never mind an election campaign. The Ministry of Justice Federal Registration Service has calculated that last year United Russia spent 915 million rubles, the Communists 73.7 million, and the Liberal Democrats 91 million.

As for the cost of a seat in the Duma, it has been approximately the same over the last few years: from 70 cents to $1 for each vote in the given constituency. Independent sources quote much bigger figures: The cost of one vote in the 2003 elections was as high as $17, i.e., two or even three times higher than in advanced European countries. This means that one seat in the Duma cost at least a million dollars, if not more.

The current lists of associations in the Duma make it clear that United Russia had to collect no less than 300 million dollars at the past elections, and the Communists about 50 million, for example. Apart from that, the parties have long lists of everyday expenses on rallies, campaigning, advertisements, and support from friendly mass media. To cover the expenses, the parties have the right to accept donations from individuals and companies and run their business. The amount of unaccounted cash is top secret. The Central Election Committee controls the money that goes through election funds. The ceiling is 400 million rubles, but only United Russia can aspire to that currently.

During elections, representatives of party headquarters admitted that big business still contributes some money, but no more than one or two million dollars a year per party. A few years ago businessmen paid such sums for the "necessary" laws without thinking twice.

Membership dues are ridiculously small. Even the meticulous Communists collect no more than two million rubles a year. Their leader, Gennady Zyuganov, recently urged his party to get no less than 100 rubles from each party member. But this sounds more like a couched appeal to big business. Yabloko does not collect any dues at all, because the game is not worth the candle.

The summer of 2006 will see a moment of truth.
If so, elections to the Duma in 2007 may be based on justice for the first time ever in the post-Soviet era. In any event, the fact that votes will not be bought en masse is quite an achievement.