Compiled by: Francisco Estrada Correa
If the TRIFE doesnâ€™t respect our Constitution, who will?
PROLOGUE What is in play in these elections?
The unwillingness of the Progresista Movement in Mexico to accept the supposed results of the July 1st 2012 presidential elections goes far beyond questioning the count carried out by the PREP and District Computation or debating if the votes were counted correctly or not. Today Mexican citizens will witness the resolution of the TRIFE, a decision that will mark the future of Mexico. This historic moment will confirm whether the magistrates will respect the spirit of our constitution or will simply opt for form over substance and for not making waves, turning over a new page instead of defending our country’s democracy. It is ridiculous to think that a candidate to the Presidency of Mexico representing any party, in this case the PRI, could appear on the record as having won by a majority vote when he has trodden upon the very spirit and essence of Mexican law and the Magna Charta. 1.The campaign expense ceiling was surpassed by more than four billion pesos and no one has questioned where these resources came from. 2.The poverty of many Mexicans was exploited to buy and coerce votes.
4.Tendentious polls in favor of Peña Nieto were published and aired across the media spectrum. 5.The PRI governors put their states in debt in a scandalous and shocking manner in order to finance the PRI campaign.
3.Resources of unknown origins were channeled through financial institutions (Monex/Ágora Case) The candidate of the Movimiento Progresista, being Mexican, has the right to demand that democracy be upheld and to fight through legal channels to ensure the spirit of the law is upheld, both in form and substance. As Mexicans, it is our duty to demand clean elections from the TRIFE, NOT BOUGHT OR MANIPULATED ELECTIONS, regardless of political party. If the TRIFE does not respect our Constitution, who will?
INTRODUCTION A perverted election
One of the questions that people ask the members of the Movimiento Progresista Coalition and Andrés Manuel López Obrador most often is: How many votes of difference are needed to accept and not contest an election? At the same time, they point out that the more than three million vote difference between first and second place in the recent presidential elections are an indisputable fact. The answer is that the difference is not measured only and exclusively by the number of votes, but also by the quality and the way in which they were obtained. When elections are fair, transparent and legitimate, one vote of difference is enough to provide a result. However, when elections are defined by a disparity in resources, obscene tactics and the coercion or pressuring of a large group of voters, the difference in votes is not the indicator of the “conclusive victory” of the candidate with the greatest number, but rather the scope of the injustices committed. If equity is the central theme in modern democracy, then inequity is the quid of the long and unfinished transition to democracy in Mexico. The 19th century democracy was the stimulus that led to universal suffrage and in the 20th century to respect and strengthen human rights. Now it seeks the equality of circumstances in the configuration of public power as the way to achieve equality in other facets of collective life like the economy, society and culture. Political reforms in this country over recent decades have focused on the guarantee of competitive parity as a critical issue, but the actors have always found a way to ridicule and violate those resolutions. For this reason, our democracy is for the most part unfinished and imperfect because in every election there are new forms and expressions of injustice or ways to take illegal or a dishonest advantage of adversaries. The recent presidential election was far from democratically impartial. The unfettered money flow, from unknown sources and far beyond any regulation, became on this occasion the particle of fraud and electoral abuse. We estimate the electoral expenses of the PRI candidate at 4.6 billion MXN when the set legal limit is 366 million MXN, that is to say, 14 times more than the permitted limit up to the moment that we presented the lawsuit; and this includes only what we could document at that point in time,
because day after day more and more evidence of squandering of funds comes to light; and the misappropriation of those funds is characterized by waste. The imperial air fleet made up of private airplanes and helicopters at the service of the PRI candidate; the spectacular billboards and massive public advertisement campaign; the distribution of millions of articles, from the classic tee shirt and baseball cap to millions of prepaid telephone cards and farm animals in rural zones and in an unheard of strategy, the massive use of MONEX and SORIANA Supermarket electronic debit cards. This campaign was characterized by opulence cash and outrageous expenses. Using an Olympic metaphor, the PRI presidential candidate, Enrique PeĂąa Nieto, ran his race under the influence of a drug that was expressly prohibited by the electoral legislation, currency in cash and in kind. His overdose affected the nature, the design and the very running of the political race. As such, the race should be invalidated and repeated under the conditions and norms established by the Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico and the electoral legislation. This is the essence of the appeal that the Movimiento Progresista Coalition has presented before the electoral authorities demanding the invalidation of the last presidential election based on the abuses committed against the constitutional principles for free and transparent elections. This publication, The Black Book, 2012 Elections, seeks to put in the hands of the citizens the proofs and arguments that sustain our challenge. We call our appeal The Citizenâ€™s Trial because the citizens of our country are the principal source of the evidence we are presenting, and because we believe that the citizens should act as the eighth Electoral Magistrate of the Supreme Court during the current evaluation process of the presidential election. Some believe that the sum total of the violations presented in our lawsuit do not merit the invalidation of the election. That at the most, the constitutional damage could be compensated with a monetary fine. This affirmation reflects a lack of conscience and memory. Forgotten are the aggravating circumstances behind what is a relapse into crime. In 2000, the PRI stole 500 million pesos from PEMEX through the Petroleum Workers Union to use in the presidential campaign of that year. The fine was double that of the theft, one billion MXN, but this sanction did not inhibit in any way their repeating the same illegal practice twelve years later, going way above the spending limit. In this sense, to fix a fine for spending more than the campaign limits in 2012, far from preventing this abuse from being repeated, is like putting a price on the presidential office for 2018. It is well known in legal and social sciences that recurring behaviors are not
inhibited or detained by economic fines, however high they might be, but rather by exemplary sanctions; in this case, a corrective sanction would be the invalidation of the election that would not just stop the PRI but also other political actors from injecting dirty money into a game that should be transparent. Now, the fact that the PRI once again used illegal money in its campaigns may not surprise many. One might say that it is part of its political genetic makeup. What is truly unacceptable is that the electoral authorities let this flagrant violation to the constitution, to electoral legislation and to common sense, sail right by them. It would only add to the degradation and decomposition of the country because the gene to combat impunity is part of the institutional genetic makeup of the IFE and the TEPJE. In a country like ours, where the patrimonial and corporative vision of public life is latent, money is used to buy positions and obtain personal and group benefits. History shows us that whoever buys the presidency ends up selling the country. A bought presidency is a presidency that is turned over to unspeakable economic pacts. An auctioned off presidency is a presidency that is notarized over to private interests. A mortgaged presidency will never be a presidency at the service of the greater interests of the nation. A bought election violates the moral constitution of a country that seeks to establish moderation and balance in public life. It is worthless to a social ethic that seeks solidarity and deliberation among the citizens in a country that is historically inequitable, and it is an affront to the patriotism of a new generation of citizens that sees in political money the origin of the corruption that is scourging and humiliating the country. “In politics, whatever can be bought by money is cheap” (Carlos Hank). This is the essence of a perverted election. It is also the vision of a political group that began giving out boxes of food to the most impoverished during the last century and continues to do so, but now through electronic debit cards. This was a perverted election that should no longer exist in our country if we really hope for true democracy, as defined by the constitution “not just a legal structure and a political regimen but also a way of life founded on the ongoing economic, social and cultural advancement of the people.”
CITIZENSâ€™ TRIAL AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF THE MEXICAN PRESIDENT
WHY SHOULD THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF JULY 1, 2012 BE INVALIDATED? On July 12 of this year, the Progressive Coalition Movement presented for judicial review, the case of the presidential election, requesting the invalidation of the election by the Electoral Tribunal of the Judiciary of the Federation (TEPJF) (Art. 99 of the Constitution). We did this, based on the evidence in our possession that demonstrate that the election did not adhere to the Constitution, for which reason our petition requests that a new extraordinary election be convoked to be carried out under conditions of legality and equity. It is important to keep in mind that the election has not yet been declared so there is no president-elect to date; this responsibility rests upon the Electoral Tribunal. The IFE is only responsible for the computation of the election; it does not issue proof of the majority vote nor does it have the authority to declare an elected candidate or his legitimacy. This is the responsibility the Electoral Tribunal, which has until September 6, 2012 to do so.
MEXICO DID NOT HAVE FREE OR LEGITIMATE ELECTION
In concrete terms, the results published by the IFE relating to the presidential elections of the United States of Mexico violated those very constitutional principles that govern elections, in order to ensure that they deemed valid (Art. 41): Certainty, legality, impartiality and objectivity. At the same time, the Magna Charta stipulates that elections be free, legitimate and regular, the vote universal, free, secret and direct; that the participation of the parties in the elections be under equality of conditions; that there be a guarantee of political pluralism and fair conditions (public financing: access to radio and television; prohibition against parties, individuals and corporations contracting publicity on the television and radio; limits to the donations by the parties in the electoral pre-campaign and electoral campaigns); that the origin and destination of the resources and application of sanctions be supervised; and that there be no slander against individuals in political or electoral publicity.
In general, these conditions were not met in these presidential elections.
INVALIDATION OR NULLITY?
There are two causes that can lead to nullification in a presidential election: one is the nullification of the voting for the reasons expressly established in Article 75 of the General Law of the System of Means for Refutation in Electoral Matters; and the other, the nullification of the election given a violation of the principles that govern elections. Our suit covers both kinds of nullity.
That is to say, although there were infractions and elements that meet the requirements for the nullification of the voting carried out in the voting booths, our appeal goes further than this. It points out the unconstitutionality of the process as a whole, because of a series of violations of the law, which can only be resolved with a new election.
The above is vouched for in the Judicial Review through documented proofs, photographs and videos; personal declarations and annotations by citizens who were witnesses or actors in the purchase of votes; company invoices, many of which were fictitious or illusionary that were part of that purchase; in addition to the use of resources during the campaign and even before, that should have obligated the intervention of the electoral authority in anticipation of illegal actions that were clearly in the making. And if this were not enough, thanks to the support of the citizens, we continue to strengthen our lawsuit with new proofs of the violations in which the PRI participated, which we are presenting before the Tribunal and, if so required, before other legally authorized authorities.
06 THE BASIS OF THE CASE: I. Inequity in the use of times and spaces on the radio and television, and the bias in the media favoring Enrique Peña Nieto II. Utilization of polls in the media to produce pro-Peña Nieto publicity. III. Excessive expenditure on publicity and on mobilization during the campaign activities of Peña Nieto, which very possibly implicates the utilization of money from illicit sources. IV. The purchase and coercion of votes through the distribution of various kinds of debit cards: prepaid, discount and telephone; but also the dispensing of cash, provisions, construction materials, fertilizers and food—the epitome of trafficking with the poverty of the people. V. The activities to promote Peña Nieto´s interests by PRI state governments, particularly the documented case of Zacatecas. VI. The administration of the State of Mexico government account by Luis Videgaray Caso, And finally, but not least serious, we confront the negligent attitude of the electoral authority to in the midst of all this, especially considering the issue of fiscalization and the fact that from the beginning of the campaigns, we called the attention of the IFE to these issues through appeals and accusations, to which the institution has not responded to date. From the very onset of the past campaign, we called the attention of the IFE to these matters through both appeals and accusations, to which that institution has still not responded. It is absolutely unconscionable that the Presidential Council of the IFE has declared that there is no rush—that its resolution will be provided in January 2013!!
08 WHAT IS THE NATURE OF OUR EVIDENCE? The importance of this trial is rooted in the fact that it was the citizens as a group who brought us this evidence and continue to do so, more than fifty boxes and counting, providing the documentation for these allegations.
THANKS TO THIS, OUR LAWSUIT INCORPORATES EVIDENCE OF ALL KINDS: I.In order to demonstrate the bias of the media toward EPN, we not only turned over newspaper clippings and recordings of radio and television programs, but also presented as proof various tracking procedures and reports, including those of the IFE itself, as well as a study by the UNAM of the monitoring process carried out during the campaign, which show clearly that the distribution of television and radio times and spots was not equitable. The favoritism toward EPN was particularly apparent in certain media groups and especially Televisa. EPN had been making deals with these media groups as part of his overall strategy from the time of his campaign for governor of the State of Mexico. This was very apparent in the hidden purchase of radio and television airtime as well as magazine coverage that was manifested in favorable news coverage and promotion of EPN his political activities and government. The strategy also included concealing information (as was the case in the event at the Iberoamerican University on May 11 of this
year) and systematic attacks on his political adversaries while a presidential candidate. The most conspicuous evidence is found in the contracts with the publicity firms belonging to Alejandro Quintero Iniguez, Televisa’s commercial vice president; the acknowledgement by Carlos Loret de Mola of the agreement between Televisa and EPN, which was actually an exercise in the commercialization of the news; the coverage of Televisa of the international tours of EPN; bills from Televisa for “COMMENTS BY JOAQUÍN LÓPEZ DORIGA TRANSMITTED DURING HIS NEWCAST “LÓPEZ DORIGA” AND DURING THE NEWSCAST OF OSCAR MARIO BETETA for $1,150,000.00 MXN and Publicity and propaganda in the electronic media, disseminating information about messages and governmental activities for $87,678,347.84 MXN, in 2010 from Televisa, TV Azteca, Milenio TV, Grupo Imagen and Teleformula, report that is now in the possession of the IFE, which was not audited for expenses in the 5th governmental report.
09 The strategy that the PRI put into practice was simple: Utilize the media and indeed all forms of publicity to introduce EPN to the market in order to make him a national figure and then present him as the â€œinevitableâ€? next president of Mexico.
10 This is particularly serious if we add to it the fact that the IFE, by means of a simple exercise of legal interpretation, gave the PRI-PVEM the most radio and television spaces from December 18, 2011 on—in a proportion of almost 3 to 1. In the study carried out by sgresearchanalytics, which Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) handed over to Televisa in the program “Tercer Grado” included in our lawsuit, the difference in the treatment of EPN and of AMLO is apparent. The only channel that criticized EPN is the program “El mañanero” on channel 5 with coverage in metropolitan Mexico, proving the concealment of news unfavorable to EPN was withheld.
This study shows how a daily poll published by Milenio, of GEA-ISA, contributed to generalizing the idea that Enrique Peña Nieto’s victory was “inevitable” knowing full well that it was a lie. This perception was promoted by several commentators and “opinion leaders”, who took it upon themselves to “sustain” the seriousness of these tracking mechanisms. This includes the opinions of Ciro Gómez Leyva, José Cárdenas and others.
Pollsters like Televisa-CNIRT-Mitofsky, BCG-Excélsior, Parametría and Ulises Beltrán, among others, offered the same kind of erroneous information, which further aggravated the damage to the electoral process by promoting incessantly the idea that there was a winner in the election before Election Day. This leads one to think that as proequity spots are now prohibited; polls are fixed so as to buy more time in television, radio and in the printed media, thereby favoring a candidacy. One fact worthy of note is that those polls that reflect a result closer to the actual result—that of Berúmen for example, was largely ignored by the media.
One determining factor in measuring the impact of the polls on voters is examining how the results were transmitted to the population at large. Take for example the case of the greatest presence, that of GEA-ISA. In addition to appearing on a daily basis in the Milenio chain newspapers, it was carried on the cable channel of the same group belonging to the Multimedios Group, with 13 television channels and 37 radio stations. That of Consulta Mitofsky was presented during the news cast of Joaquín López Dóriga and in Telefórmula and referred to in several political opinion programs within the Televisa firm in programs such as “Third Degree”.
The poll held by Parametría had ample coverage through the newspaper chain OEM, 70 dailies across the country, 24 radio stations, a television channel and 43 Internet pages. Ulises Beltrán’s poll was also carried by Excélsior on its programs and in the newscasts of the group Imagen Multimedia, specifically Channel 28-Chain Three. An important aside: this pollster has been an advisor for at least the last 10 years to the PVEM and a member of its “strategy room.” Even Ciro Gómez Leyva recognized the deception in the polls, as evidenced in this video: Scan QR code and Open Web Site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWV-g7RHRUA
In order to illustrate the PeĂąa Nietoâ€™s excessive spending on publicity and on campaign activities, we present documentation and proof that from April 26, almost at the beginning of the campaign onward, we were already warning that the campaign expense limits established by law had been exceeded. Our lawsuit includes a conservative evaluation based on our information, but which is born out by the monitoring activities of the IFE. Of course it does not include expenses that we cannot quantify like commissioned articles, internet contracts etc. Indeed, we are requesting that the IFE investigate such spending, as is indicated by law.
What we can demonstrate is that the legal spending limits of the campaign were surpassed significantly by the PRI. While the law sets the limit at 336 million pesos, PeĂąa Nieto spent 4.6 billion pesos on his campaign, that is to say, 4.2 billion pesos over the limit. We included the rest of the expenses like the Ă gora operative, the activities during the Mexican soccer match in the Estadio Azteca, and the Soriana and telephone cards.
18 Proof of the use of Soriana Supermarket cards for buying votes is in the file, including the physical evidence of the cards themselves, seven types of cards, and notarized testimonies of citizens who declared that they received them in return for voting for Peña Nieto. There are more than four thousands of these cards registered, although to date the number, the total resources expended, and their origin is not known. There are also a few million-peso agreements made by PRI governors with the Soriana Group. The file also includes at least one ticket from a store in the chain with the heading “PRI benefit”. The following are links with live testimonies:
Scan QR code and Open Web Site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paLFVNDXvHY
Scan QR code and Open Web Site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDlOxgUssXg
In order to substantiate our suspicion that the PRI campaign received illicit funds, we have also submitted as proof, among other elements, the case of the operation that distributed thousands of Monex bank cash cards. We provide examples of the cards themselves, in this case three types of cards, as well as a copy of the contract of this firm with the PeĂąa Nieto team, which involved a little over 56 million dollars offered to the Financial Group Monex in order to position the image of the PRI candidate. We also included a package of 37 invoices and three lists including details from the mentioned invoices for a total of 240 million pesos listed as a â€œcorporate charge reimbursements for prepaid credit.â€? The Monex Financial Group issued 100,000 electronic cash cards benefiting PRI operatives. The cards themselves, their digital fiscal vouchers and the lists of those representatives registered with the electoral authority, provide the proof. The legality of this operative was questionable but the use of parallel financing structures like Monex and Soriana meant that it need not be reported to the electoral authority as political parties normally must do relating to fundraising activities.
Several business associations appear as donors of the money used to buy votes and there are indications of money laundering. The origin of these resources, whether illicit or not, should be investigated by the corresponding authorities because in the end the public treasury will end up paying off those who invested in the purchase of the presidency. That is to say, the people will end up paying not only the 4,600 million pesos for the PRI campaign but also for the benefits that go with the â€œinvestmentâ€?. In essence, pro-PRI votes across the country were bought with cash and with thousands, if not millions, of credit cards used to purchase merchandise and prepaid credit as well as provisions, construction materials, fertilizers and other gifts that require significant resources. The sum and the magnitude of these funds lead one to believe that they come from illicit means. PRI leaders, principally in Tabasco, State of Mexico and Veracruz among other states, may have been involved in the crime of money laundering by drawing on this kind of resource. Furthermore the PRI presumably received campaign resources from abroad, as seen in accounts from Business Capital Group S.C. and Global Net Services S.A. de C.V. in Banamex. Here we found a double accounting procedure not reported to the IFE, as well as unusual and unexplained money flows in the private accounts of public officials, which should be investigated and clarified immediately.
In order to prove that the purchase and distribution of telephone cards was part of the Peña Nieto publicity campaign, we provide several samples of them as well as the testimony of many citizens who received them with the condition that they vote for this presidential candidate. In order to demonstrate the activities of the PRI governments in favor of Peña Nieto campaign, we present several documents and testimonies. The operation was launched in June when Peña Nieto realized that his political popularity was actually falling, contrary to the misleading polls that the campaign was promoting. On June 12 in Toluca, in the official residence of the Governor of the State of Mexico, 16 PRI governors met with Enrique Peña and his campaign team. At that meeting, the presidential candidate ordered the governors of his party to produce votes for him. The governors then singled out certain collaborators close to the municipal and district governments and provided them with money to buy votes. In turn, the functionaries then charged the vote-buying responsibility to their subordinates, who in turn handed
out provisions, gifts and construction materials and provided services, housing credits and scholarships. They even offered discounts and complete pardoning on state taxes. Thanks to the case of the state of Zacatecas, we were able to reconstruct how the operation worked. Accounts in Banorte and Inbursa were opened with money from an unknown source in the name of Victor Manuel Rentería López, Personal Secretary of the Chief Administrative Officer of the State Government to run the Second District. These accounts were used to pay the companies supplying the materials that were used to influence the voters and the political operators responsible for getting the votes. These operators handed out provisions, materials and cards and had access to the resources of a range of state dependencies (CEAPA, the Heath Sector, SEDIF, SEPLADER, etc.), which they also gave to the voters they recruited.
24 The vote-coercion operative was housed in the “Casas Amigas”. Their staff members, trained by the IFE as PRI “observers”, each with a list of names in hand, made sure that the citizens who had received support voted for the PRI. This phase was called “Bingo”. The evidence of the Zacatecas case appear in this video:
Scan QR code and Open Web Site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPMdnBF7B8
We are talking of 108 million in one state But it was not only the case in Zacatecas state. We have evidence of this same operative in the State of Mexico, Michoacán, Colima, Jalisco, Guanajuato, and across the republic.
25 In order to corroborate the suspicious handling of an account of government of the State of Mexico by the Peña Nieto campaign coordinator, Luis Videgaray, we have provided a copy of bank statements and online consultations of Scotiabank, all denied by the PRI, in addition to the testimony of an employee of the bank itself. The PRI alleges that the Scotiabank account was not used to pay anyone, only to transfer money momentarily at night in order to “earn interest”; however, a copy of an electronic SPEI receipt (interbank electronic funds transfer) of the Bank of Mexico provides proof of a deposit for 50 million pesos by an individual very early in the morning. This is the audio of the call that proves that Videgaray is the holder of the government account of the State of Mexico to date: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L2VSZoUCPU
Scan QR code and Open Web Site
26 We prove the purchase of votes across the country with concrete physical evidence. In the file is the evidence of the providing of provisions, blenders, grills, and all kinds of utensils. In addition, the file includes notarized testimonies of how the PRI members provided cash, construction materials, fertilizers, and food like roasted chicken, pork, beef. This shows how the PRI cynically exploited by poverty of the population. It is also worth mentioning that in addition to the telephone cards, pre-paid cash cards and discount and credit cards in Peña Nieto’s name, there were similar cards given out in the name of local candidates—for the posts of governor, senator, state representative etc.—if they joined the operative in their state or municipality. These were also used to get out the vote for Peña Nieto in the presidential election. Examples of this were, among others: “La Choca” in Tabasco; the “Tarjeta de Todos (Card for Everyone) in Coahuila; “La Jalisciense” in Jalisco; “La Benefactora” (the Benefactor) in Guanajuato; “La Tamaulipeca” in Tamaulipas and the “Premia Platin” (Platinum Prize) distributed by the PVEM across the country.
To proof the purchase and the distribution of phone cards as propaganda of Peña Nieto, we contribute with several types, as well as many citizens’ testimonies proving buying their ballot.
The buying of votes and trafficking with poverty in the rural sector was, without a doubt, the most immoral aspect of this election. Pe単a Nieto got the votes because he bought loyalty by taking advantage of the need and the hunger of the people. For example, the three districts with the greatest rural population in the Yucatan registered an average participation of 86 percent. In Chiapas, voter participation, increased 118 percent compared to the 2006 election, and the PRI obtained 506,000 votes more in 2012 than six years earlier.
Because of those and other efforts Peña “beat” AMLO in rural areas, which account for the 35% of the total, by 2,801,042 votes. This is a video about the buying of votes: Scan QR code and Open Web Site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziknF9lOLlQ
30 A CYNIC MIGHT ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF VOTE BUYING AND EVEN LESS POSSIBLE TO PUT IT INTO NUMBERS, BUT HERE IS THE EVIDENCE, hundreds of testimonies, images, videos and thousands of cards of all types and from various institutions. And we might add another variable: the use of USBs to pay for the vote in Guanajuato, among other places.
The evidence and testimonies we have to date prove that approximately 5 million votes were bought. In the states of Mexico, Veracruz and Chiapas alone, around two million votes were bought. Novel ways in which the PRI operated: the “little falcons” and the USB bracelet. There is also a significant number of evaluations by national and foreign observers that point out several anomalies. The most comprehensive document was presented by Alianza Cívica (Civil Alliance), which concludes that 30% of the votes in 21% of the voting booths it watched over were the product of the purchase and coercion of votes. There are also reports of the violation of the secret ballot and that 18% of the citizens who were interviewed were apparently pressured to vote in a certain way.
THE MOST SERIOUS FACT IS THAT THE ELECTORAL AUTHORITY DID NOT ADDRESS THESE VIOLATIONS TO THE PROCESS, WHICH WE DENOUNCED AT A TIME WHEN THEY COULD STILL BE AVOIDED.
32 THE NEGLIGENT AND COMPLICIT ROLE OF THE IFE In fact, throughout the pre-campaign and the actual campaign, we presented several appeals denouncing the exceeding of the campaign expense ceiling, campaign use of public resources and programs, the intervention of authorities outside the electoral process, and even several violations of the law. However, we received only evasion, and procrastination, if not direct refusal to fulfill its legal obligation, from the IFE. On April 26 and June 5 of 2012, the representatives of the PRD, PT and MC presented a formal complaint and evidence of the violation of the campaignspending ceiling by Enrique Peña Nieto. Proofs of the acquisition of time on the radio and television are also in the possession of the IFE. As relates to vote buying, there is evidence of the authorization of illicit and hidden financing as there is a paper trail in the financial system that makes it easy for the IFE to follow and verify without violating banking and fiduciary secrecy. There are credits of almost 300 million pesos, without counting the large amounts of cash that did not go into bank accounts. Nothing has been done to address these serious problems to date. We should also mention that on February 8, 2012, while still a pre-candidate to the presidency of the republic, Andrés Manuel López Obrador requested that the General Council of the IFE adopt a series of measures to prevent the buying of the vote, the surpassing of the campaign fund ceiling and the utilization of public resources in favor of a candidate etc. But the IFE refused to act. However, without a doubt the worst offense by the IFE was its assertion that the fiscalization process should come only after the electoral process is closed. The IFE has insisted on keeping to a schedule by which the parties will present their campaign reports in October and the IFE will announce its judgments on January 1, 2013, a month after the presidential inauguration. This schedule ignores the fact that they have a preliminary report of campaign expenses as of May 30, and the necessary powers to carry out an extraordinary fiscalization procedure. Under the circumstances we have outlined, the IFE should be required to do exactly that, if not by the court, then by the people. This is essential to the health of the Republic.
33 Indeed, on June 27, 2012, the four presidential candidates convened at the headquarters of the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE), which convoked the meeting in which they signed a “Pact of Civility”. In this pact, they all acknowledged that the vote was free and secret and claimed an “energetic rejection of the use of public resources and social programs to coerce the vote”. In spite of that pact, as of July 2 there was still an infinite number of anomalies we feel duty bound to record. No, the Pact was not violated by us. On the contrary, we are the ones who are making its abuses public. In addition to the chain of fraud already described, there were many acts of voter pressure and coercion by the Priistas. These include telephone calls and cellphone messages through “call centers.” Which took the form of a “dirty war” principally against our candidate: slanderous texts and messages to frighten those who would vote for him. In addition, “brigades” of Priistas were place in the voting stations to monitor their operation. One of their tactics was to distribute f cellphones (in our suit we include several of them) so the voters could photograph their ballots and thus prove for whom they had voted. Another was novel coercive tactic observed in the voting stations: so-called “little falcons,” boys who mixed with the voters to verify that their vote was for the PRI.
There were also many ballots marked in favor of Peña Nieto put into the voting boxes, some even without being folded—which meant they were in the boxes before the voting started—and others marked before being printed (both cases documented in the State of Veracruz). Furthermore, two days before the elections, ballots were found in Tabasco, as well as in other states. And even so, our challenge is being denounced as “antidemocratic” and “uncivilized.” We see it as a rebellion in the face of unmitigated fraud. It was enough to go out into the street to see what was happening in the nation between November 2011 and July 2012 and much earlier, to recognize the truth of what we are claiming. There is even talk of appealing to the “Pact” between the presidential candidates in order to further tie our hands.
The magistrates of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Power of the Federation (TEPJF) are now analyzing our suit. Currently it is in the instruction stage, where evidence is gathered and due diligence carried out in order to put the case together and develop a provisional award, which should then be submitted to the Supreme Court. The legal limit for presenting this award is August 31, after which the seven electoral magistrates will make a pronouncement about its assessment of the presidential election by September 6 at the latest. In this sentence, the TEPJF can confirm the calculation made by the IFE or revoke it, which would imply the need to hold extraordinary elections. The magistrates have a great responsibility before the Mexicans of today and tomorrow. The responsibility for the law is in their hands, as is the credibility of our democracy. To allow the irregularities described here to pass without notice and to allow the buying of the Presidency of the Republic, would violate our democratic aspirations and harm the dignity of Mexico.
THE NEGLIGENT AND COMPLICIT ROLE OF THE IFE
We will not accept that fraud and corrupt practices be considered normal. We will not be quiet in the face of the facts as the Priistas, the IFE and some media and those who now discredit us by declaring that this suit is a personal whim or the obsession of a group of fanatics “incapable of accepting their defeat”. The worst defeat would be to stay silent and let this robbery go by, because we cannot permit that poverty, ignorance, the ridicule of the law and cynicism become the basis of our society. It is true that the future of Mexico has no price. The task of saving it and defending democracy is not the task of one man or a few political parties. It is the task of all the citizens. And as Andrés Manuel López Obrador states, only the people can save the people.