No, this is about common rules for everyone. Campaign material had to be marked as such and campaign finances had to be declared. One candidate blatantly failed to do so and won the first round. The court took a bold decision.
> the general public is so easily influenceable that allowing them to vote is a danger for democracy
I hate to admit it but he’s got a point. My counter would be that the recent US election was not won by the biggest spender.
Free speech is valuable and worth defending specifically because it has the potential to change minds, not just because people like the sounds of their own voices.
(For the recent US election, people also point to Musk buying Twitter and getting his president of choice and saying this demonstrates why Musk is smart and $44bn was worth it, so are you sure it wasn't won by the biggest spenders?)
If Russia had called them in for not blocking or censoring pro-EU candidates would you not have called that election interference?
> The collection of electoral contributions and the payment of electoral expenses may be made only through bank accounts notified in advance to the Permanent Electoral Authority.
The EU is not involved in directly financing candidates or political parties in Romania, they've already given us tens of billions of dollars to develop our country.
Wow, seems like they're spent tens of billions of dollars in long term election interference campaigns. Are we going to see the politicians elected going to jail over it?
Not quite the same as external party spending huge amounts of cash running political campaigns, while ignoring all the local rules about campaigning. After all Romania didn’t have to accept the EU cash, or spent it. The EU doesn’t force countries to join, just so they can give them billions of euros in the hopes of interfering in a political process years later. A political process that’s only important, because of the development funding. Much easier and cheaper to simpler not get involved, and allow those countries to struggle alone.