Jogszerű kampánykiadás vagy választási visszaélés?
Legitimate Campaign Expenditure or Electoral Fraud?

The Case Files of a Trial

Summary/Abstract: The study sheds light on some of the contradictions in the perceptions of electoral fraud in the Age of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy through a civil suit conducted in 1910 at the Royal Court of Budapest. In the focus of the lawsuit stood the dividing line between legitimate and illegitimate campaign expenditure and the three verdicts clearly suggest that contemporary judiciary practice had no unambiguous stance concerning the issue. Budapest attorney Manó Ság was the plaintiff, and Protestant pastor József Irsay the defendant. Both held Independence Party mandates in the house of representatives in the electoral cycle ending in 1910. The subject matter of the case was 4000 crowns, which Ság demanded to be paid by Irsay as recompense for the electioneering he had undertaken for the pastor. This means that although the case was not one of typical electoral fraud, the judges still had to present their views about questions of electoral arbitration because the question was whether it was legal to hand over sums of money to canvassers for campaign purposes. While the court represented one standpoint in this question, the court of appeal decided the opposite, and finally the supreme court ruled the original court decision. This process clearly indicates the Hungarian legal system’s uncertainty surrounding the legality of campaign expenditures and the fact that they were unable to establish a uniform judicial practice in this question. The study presents the contemporary regulations as well as the proceedings of the trials to demonstrate how these discrepancies between legal standards and everyday judicial practice manifested in the arbitration process of the judges.

• Details
• Contents