Eva Joly advances to the front of the stage, behind the desk, facing dozens of activists. “The ballot boxes have spoken,” she says. We are April 22, 2012. On the evening of the first round of the presidential election, the environmental candidate can only admit defeat. Worse than that: with 2.31% of the vote, Eva Joly is well below 5%, preventing her from obtaining reimbursement of her campaign expenses. A cold shower for the one who had been predicted five times more at the start of the campaign. A painful memory that some still have in mind, and that others fear at the dawn of the first round of the presidential election.
Yves Contassot remembers 2012 and the disappointment of Eva Joly. It was he who held the strings of the budget as treasurer of the campaign. And yet… Everything is green from June 2011: Eva Joly comes out ahead of the environmental primary against Nicolas Hulot and the polls predict him between 5 and 10% of the vote, before they drop to… 1%! The candidate is penalized by several controversies. “When she said she wanted to cancel the July 14 parade, it hurt us,” recalls Yves Contassot. Over the polls, the campaign adapts and the budget is revised downwards. The objective is simple: save the furniture.
Because 5% is a fateful threshold for the presidential election. If a candidate is above, he is reimbursed for his campaign expenses up to 47.5% of the ceiling set by the State, i.e. a little more than 8 million euros for the first round (for a ceiling of €16,851,000). Below, the reimbursement corresponds to 4.75% of the same ceiling… or 800,000 euros. The challenge for the candidates is therefore not to spend more – or as little as possible above this envelope, otherwise it is they – or more often the party – who will have to compensate.
Small candidates who pay attention to expenses
“Candidates who know they are going to have less than 5%, even if they say they are going to win, adapt their campaign budget”, analysis with Parisian Romain Mathieu, researcher at the University of Lorraine, specialist in election campaigns. Thus, the “small candidates” rarely spend more than 800,000 euros. Philippe Poutou had spent 770,000 euros in 2017, Nathalie Arthaud 930,000 euros or Jean Lassalle only… 240,000 euros. “Their expenses show that they think they are losing,” explains Romain Mathieu. The socialist Benoît Hamon, whom some had imagined not to pass the 5% mark (he had finally made 6.4%), had spent more than 11.5 million euros for his campaign.
The candidates who have the most to lose are therefore those who start with the intention of making more than 5%, but who in the end make less. This is what happened for Eva Joly in 2012. “It’s more an overdraft authorization than a loan that the bank gives us, notes Yves Contassot. When the bank saw that we were approaching 5%, they told us: I turn off the tap. We couldn’t borrow anymore. The environmentalists then understand well before the first round that they will only be reimbursed for part of the expenses. “We saw it long before,” he explains. We quickly reduced the sails, we did fewer meetings, we took smaller rooms because it was cheaper, we stopped putting cranes or giant screens… ”
A race for reimbursement
Not reaching 5% therefore means embarking on a new race, once the first round has passed: that of reimbursement. You have to close the gap between the expenses and what you have borrowed. In 2012, for Eva Joly, it was more than 1 million euros (out of 1,812,000 euros spent). Yves Contassot had then, at the time, called for donations so that the final cost “Be as light as possible for the party”, as he had explained. The regional bodies of EELV had also been called upon.
In 2012, Nicolas Sarkozy had well exceeded 5%, but the cancellation of his campaign accounts had forced him to launch what was called the “Sarkothon”, allowing the UMP to recover 11 million euros donations in two months. In 1995, Philippe de Villiers, then presidential candidate, now supporting Éric Zemmour, obtained 4.7% of the vote in the first round. A bit too little to be fully reimbursed for his campaign expenses: he too had to launch a donation campaign to avoid bankruptcy.
A non-reimbursement of campaign would not have the same impact for the candidates according to their parties. Thus, at the National Rally, this eventuality – unlikely – would increase the debt a little more, amounting in 2020 to 23 million euros. The Republicans, forced in 2019 to sell their seat to absorb their losses, do not do much better: it amounts to more than 17 million euros. The Socialist Party, in a slightly better situation (8 million euros in debt), also forced to sell its seat in Solferino after the defeat of Benoît Hamon, has already called on its federations to lend money to the campaign. Hidalgo.
A candidate “indebted”
What would happen if neither a candidate nor a party managed to repay the campaign money? “The candidate may have his own property seized, bank accounts, house, etc. It is he who is liable for the debt in his own name, ”recalls Yves Contassot. The party, most often the candidate’s agent with the bank, “can also have its property seized”, explains the former treasurer of Eva Joly. “There may be legal proceedings to decide on a refund or even the cessation of payments,” he continues. This has never happened in France before.
Question of money again, the losers of the first round will quickly have another concern: the legislative elections. They are the ones who decide on the public funding of parties. “A poor performance in the presidential election can have a very strong impact if it is confirmed in the legislative elections because it leads to a very marked reduction in public funding for five years”, explains Romain Mathieu. These are the results that define the envelope allocated to each party, according to the number of ballots (provided to make at least 1% in 50 departments) and elected candidates. Which, in light of Sunday’s results, could be a bit of a challenge for some parties.