US Midterm elections

Since 2002 the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has been observing elections in the U.S. On each occasion—including the hotly debated 2020 presidential elections—it has stamped the votes as “free and fair.”

The organisation’s elections observers, however, will be conspicuous by their absence, from the mid-term elections in a few weeks’ time. For the first time the Trump Administration has refused to invite them.

The State Department’s official reason for the lack of an invitation is that the OSCE “should focus its limited resources on elections where it can have the greatest impact.”

The OSCE has responded by diplomatically expressing its disappointment. Human Rights Watch, however, has been more forthcoming. Its Director, Philippe Bolopion, said: “The US has long criticised Russian and other governments for dodging external scrutiny of their elections. Now the Trump Administration is mimicking them.”

HR Watch then went onto cite several reasons to be concerned about the fairness of the mid-term elections including the possible basing of ICE agents near polling stations; plans to base Department of Justice federal election monitors and over 1,000 polling places; repeated administration claims of non-citizens voting and voter eligibility checks.

Bolopian said: The test for November 3 will not be only on who wins, but whether everyone’s rights are respected before, during, and after the vote.” He added that without external monitors, it would be harder for the international community to establish reliably whether voters’ rights had been respected.

Since 1990, the OSCE has sent observers on 470 missions. Under the Copenhagen Document of 1990, it is tasked with observing elections in its 57-member countries. The United States joins Russia and Belarus in being the only two countries to have banned OSCE observers from its elections.

Elon Musk

It is rare in history for one man—who is not a politician—to have a massive impact on the outcome of the election in the world’s most economically and politically advanced country in the world. Trillionaire Elon Musk, however, is just such a man. He is believed to have given more than $366 million to support Republican candidates in the upcoming November mid-terms.

According to a report in the New York Times this week more than $276 million of that money has poured into groups and political action committees just since July. More than $76 million has gone into his own super PAC, which is focused on seven Senate seats in battleground states, and more than thirty House races.

The Times notes that this is just the money that law requires must be disclosed. It is believed that in both this election and in 2024 Musk made seven-figure donations to candidates through so-called “dark-money”  channels that circumvent America’s incredibly lax political donation laws by protecting donors’ identities.

The money goes primarily on advertising for, as the saying goes: “It pays to advertise.” And in America during the election cycle the airwaves, billboards and newspaper columns are dominated with political advertising. It has become an accepted political fact that the prize of elected office goes to the politician who can spend the most on ads.

There have been attempts to curb how much wealthy individuals can spend on supporting political candidates, but they have been thwarted by the Supreme Court. It has ruled that restrictions on political finance are a breach of the constitution’s protection of free speech.

But the law does try to tip its hat in the direction of controlling contributions. Direct donations to candidates by individuals are capped at $3,500 per individual per candidate per election.

But there is a loophole. It is called the Super PAC (or Super Political Action Committee) which can accept unlimited contributions from an individual—such as Musk. The money can be used to fund advertising, campaign messaging and paid canvassers. The only qualification is that the donor cannot coordinate activities with the candidate.

Congress could change the law. But to do so would require changing the constitution which is an extremely unwieldy thing to do. On top of that, every politician in America, from the president down to the humble state  legislator and beyond, benefits from the lack of controls on campaign finance. It is not in their interest to place guard rails on the likes of Elon Musk.

Democracy promises one person, one vote. But in modern America, it seems that one man can have the influence of millions. The power of Elon Musk raises the question:  if political power increasingly belongs to those who can afford to buy influence, how democratic is democracy itself?

India

India’s Cockroach Movement (CJP) has its first martyrs. Hours before a planned protest the movement’s founder, Abhijeet Dipke,  and several others were arrested in a failed  attempt to stop a protest demanding the resignation of India’s election chief.

The Gen Z-led Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) accuses India’s Election Commission of manipulating voter lists to favour Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling BJP. Both deny the allegation.

Hours before a recent planned protest, police went to the house where Dipke was staying. In an exchange broadcast live on Instagram, he challenged officers who had come to caution him against holding the march, asking whether waving the Indian flag was against the law. Shortly afterwards, Dipke was seen being forced into car.

It was Dipke’s second detention in less than a week. Last Saturday, police boarded his plane shortly after it landed in Delhi to prevent him from reaching another demonstration. He was released the following day.

The movement’s two other main leaders, Saurav Das and Ashutosh Ranka, were also detained last weekend and later released. But on Wednesday, they were sent to jail for five days after returning to Jantar Mantar, a protest site near parliament that police had recently declared off-limits. Friday’s march was partly intended to demand the release of Das and Ranka.

Dipke’s detention means the movement’s three main leaders are once again in custody. The CJP said it had lost contact with him and accused police of taking him to an undisclosed location and denying him access to lawyers.

Barely five months old, the CJP began as an online campaign in May after India’s chief justice compared unemployed young people to cockroaches. Dipke embraced the insult and turned it into a rallying cry.

By July, the group had become a formidable force, drawing thousands of young people into protests over leaked exam papers. A march towards parliament in July descended into clashes with police, bringing the movement wider attention and intensifying pressure on the government. The unrest eventually forced the resignation of India’s education minister.

The CJP then  turned its attention to India’s electoral system, demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar over a sweeping revision of voter lists known as the Special Intensive Revision (SIR). Critics say the exercise risks removing legitimate voters from the rolls, potentially depriving them of the right to vote. The Election Commission says it is targeting ineligible, dead and duplicate voters and denies allegations that it is favouring the ruling BJP.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”