The major funders of the political parties in 2024

Expert Forum analyzed the financing of political parties in 2024. And it was not an easy task, especially since it was the richest year in the history of political parties. The state paid for reimbursements for electoral campaigns, as well as for annual subsidies to political parties, over a billion lei, from public money. We analyzed over 200 names of funders of the main political parties, published in the Official Gazette, to better understand where the money that massively went into last year’s campaigns came from.

In this report, we analyzed the main donors of political parties in 2024; the report does not cover the 2025 elections. It is not an exhaustive analysis, but only includes the parties that reported the highest values ​​– PSD, PNL, USR, AUR and PUSL. Not all names published in the Official Gazette are included, but only those above certain relevance limits.

For the purposes of this report, major funders are those who have given the most money and whose names have been published in the Official Gazette. Parties are required to publish annually in the Official Gazette, by April 30, a series of information such as total contributions, contributors over 10 Gross Minimum WAGE (GMW), donations over GMW, loans to individuals/legal entities over 100 GMW. Most of this data is covered by the report.

We did not analyze the contributions declared in the electoral campaigns, which were the subject of previous reports, but only at the funds that went directly to the party. However, these funds are very important, especially in the context in which they were later transferred to the campaigns. The Social Democrat party (PSD), for example, used a large part of these funds to finance its campaigns. They raised 100 million lei from loans alone. It should be noted that the party’s money can be used less in local or parliamentary elections, where it only represents a supplement to the funds declared by candidates in constituencies. However, in the presidential and European parliamentary elections, in theory, a party could fully finance the electoral campaigns.

 

 

Major funders of political parties – main conclusions

• Parties have used private funding much more than subsidies , as they did in previous years. The goal is to obtain reimbursements from public money while also using the money from subsidies for advertising or party development. The effect is to burden the state budget and use subsidies in a non-transparent way for campaigns.
• Although we have identified relatively few cases of funders who could not justify a donation or loan according to their financial statements, they do exist. Of course, we do not have detailed financial details, but simple correlations raise questions about how some people donate almost all the money they earn to a party, or even more than they could justify. These mathematical calculations should also be a wake-up call for the authorities. We have marked these names where there are possible questions in bold red .
• We have identified few cases in which a financier transferred money to two or more parties. In only a few cases have we identified individuals or companies affiliated with one party who donated to another. This data must also be put into context, as such donations were made several years apart. One such case is FCSB SA (football club), controlled by George Becali, who also directed funds to AUR and PSD. A PSD deputy financed both PSD and PNL in 2024. Recently, we identified a case in which the leader of the Social Democrats in the Iași County Council financed the Liberals through a company. Financing multiple parties at the same time is a good way to buy influence or to bet on multiple parties in case one does not win.
• In several cases, we did not find any information about the funders who gave up to 660,000 lei to parties – some 30 cases. Although it is very possible that they are private individuals, without much trace in the online space, we show that in the overwhelming majority of cases there is at least minimal information about the funders.
• We identified funders in several cases who appear to have borrowed money from other people to give it to the party.
• In several dozen cases, the loans were not included in the asset declarations – it is possible that some of them were returned and then the obligation to publish them no longer existed, but since we do not have this information at hand, we marked these cases in the report.
• In the case of legal entities, we have identified several companies that were established very recently , such as at the end of 2023 or even March or April 2024, and that lend the party after a month an amount that they obviously have no way of obtaining from economic activity. Most of them are linked to the PSD. Therefore, these funds probably come from associates who transfer money to the party. It should be noted that a legal entity can lend the party a larger amount, but it can also be a way of avoiding a transparent donation or loan by creating shell companies. However, such a practice is not necessarily transparent and may raise questions about the source of the money and the reason for the donation. See for example -TRADE SPHERE BROKERS – SRL, EUPHORICH WORLD – SRL, ISC ESTATE – SRL,
• In the case of companies with very low incomes or almost non-existent assets that have lent or donated to the party, we see 2 typologies – 1) it seems that the companies received a loan (they have debt in the 2024 fiscal declaration) and 2) the data in the financial declaration does not explain in any way how the company could direct 1.6 million or less. We note that we do not have access to all the financial information of a company or to other data that could shed light on this situation, so these conclusions are based only on public data from the Ministry of Finance. However, such practices raise questions. We wonder why a company that is barely surviving would donate or lend a lot of money if it does not expect something in return.
• In the case of legal entities, we identified several networks of funders who donated through several companies, but also privately. In some cases, the question arises whether the threshold provided by law, which does not allow a person who is an associate/shareholder to direct money without taking into account a limit, was not exceeded.
  • Jean Sasu (co-owner of NUBA, associated with several companies) lent PSD as an individual and through companies with 3.7 million, to which is added a loan from a company owned by his wife, Ana Maria Sasu, of 1.6 million lei. Some of the companies through which he financed the party were established shortly before the date of the loan and have limited income, certainly lower than the loans. See EUPHORICH WORLD, ISC ESTATE, Youth Essentials, Trade Sphere Brokers. In addition, TRADE SPHERE BROKERS owned by Laura Niculae, who is in charge of organizing events at NUBA, financed PSD with 1.6 million lei.
  • Alexandru and Ana Maria Besciu lent PSD 3.2 million lei through BAV IT BUSINESS CONSULTING and Youth Essentials (which they own separately). Their names are mentioned in connection with the Sasu family.
  • Another case is that of the Moise family (Elena Moise/Sebastian Moise/Ionela Dicu) , who lent money to PSD both personally and through companies. The funds went to PSD. See Redpoint Management Solutions, Elite Architectural Design
  • Vali Porojan , the administrator of the Luduș Sugar Factory, who had been a shareholder until 2020 in the company TRANSILVANIA JUU TAKU GROUP – SRL, which in turn lent the party 1.6 million lei, also borrowed money from the PSD .
  • Several companies owned by Mihai Tufan or Emilia and Mihai Anastasescu , businessmen who run companies with significant incomes, donated to the PSD. – see CEMART INVEST, CEMROM and ELSID
  • Several people from the management of Rotary Construcții , a major construction company, loaned the party 600,000 lei each – see Rotaru Daniela, Marcu Mirel Alexandru, Rotaru Mihai Leonard
  • Several people from Constanța, around the Polaris Group, donated to the PSD – see Maria Lățea, Târșoagă Ionuț Nicolae
  • PSD lent money to people who have economic ties to Mihai Cristian Ciolacu , who according to the press is the nephew of former Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu – see Sandu Adriana Denisa/Solar Energy and EVOFARM LOGISTIC
  • In the case of the PNL, we saw that there were various loans between party members, one of the most active financiers being Cristian Bușoi or Rareș Bogdan.
  • In the case of PUSL, we see how most of the financiers are connected to Dan Voiculescu, his family, or companies in his portfolio.

• Although it is legal, we still wonder why companies or business people – many of whom are most likely not party members – were so generous to the party in an election year. Especially in the context where donations from individuals had remained rather an exception in previous years. We note that some of these companies or other companies owned by people who appear on this list also receive money from parties, during the campaign or from subsidies. So, it may also be a system in which money circulates between various entities.
• The Permanent Electoral Authority did not conduct an annual audit of political parties, as it should have done according to the law. Thus, most of this money was not audited, but was reimbursed from the state. It is understandable that since four elections were organized in one year, it did not allow an institution that has 14 employees at the central level who are in charge of this audit to do its job in parallel with the audits for the elections. At the same time, we are talking about more than 700 million lei that were reimbursed from public money, and we will most likely see the results of the audits in 2026.
• It also remains worrying that verification of the origin of funds is limited, unless there is a complaint or a scandal. According to the law, the AEP is not mandated to verify the source of money ex officio, but only to control transactions and their legality. It can initiate more detailed investigations if it identifies possible irregularities. There are certain controls that are carried out by banks and by the ONPCSB, but also checks that are carried out by the ANI regarding the declarations submitted by candidates, elected officials or officials. But if a person or entity introduces illicitly obtained money into this circuit, we believe that extended checks are rather an exception .

• The Constitutional Court Decision No. 297 of May 29, 2025 related to the declarations of assets and interests represents a major challenge for transparency . Thus, this is probably the last year in which we will be able to conduct such an analysis, given that the declarations will no longer be made public as before.
• According to Law 334/2006, electoral campaigns cannot be financed by companies that, 12 months before the start of the electoral campaign, carried out activities financed from public funds. The same prohibition obviously does not apply to the financing of political parties, and the law should be amended to extend this restriction, especially in the context in which party money is transferred to campaigns.

Recommendations

• Regulating the publication of the names of donors or people who lend money to candidates or political parties during the election campaign (above certain values), in order to understand who finances the elections and whether they coincide with donors to parties outside the campaign. Under current law, this information is not public, which means that we have no idea about the sources of funds in a campaign.
• Strengthening mechanisms for verifying the origin of political finances – it is not enough to understand how money circulates, but also where it comes from and increasing collaboration between relevant institutions.
• Introducing overall financial limits to funding, per person or legal entity, not just per type of funding and per party. In other words, a person should not be able to pay more than a certain amount. Ideally, the law should limit funding to amounts higher than one’s own income, especially in the context where we are not talking about elections, but about party funding. One model could be imposing a percentage of income, per year.
• The law should more clearly regulate annual income and expenditure reports, as at this point they no longer contain information about party financiers, and the limits for publishing data in the Official Gazette are too high.
• Parliament should regulate the transparency of declarations of assets and interests as soon as possible following the CCR decision of May 2025, in order to also contribute to the transparency of political financing.

Political parties’ income situation in 2024

• In 2024, the parties’ income was the highest ever, especially in the context of four rounds of elections. Therefore, the parties mobilised to obtain as much money as possible from donors and through contributions. Although we do not have official statistics, the data collected by EFOR shows that the political parties whose tax declarations are published on the website of the Ministry of Finance show that the income was (without PNL) approximately 957 million lei (of which 353 million represents PSD), and the expenses were 1.109 billion lei – some parties spent on the campaign, but the reimbursements were made in 2025, which explains the discrepancy. Of this total, 382 million lei represent subsidies. The analysis does not include PNL, which had not published the data until now, contrary to the law. We were able to identify data for 82 political parties; Even if some parties were not included in the list, it certainly does not affect the total, as all major parties are included.

• Although this report does not cover the income and expenses of political parties in 2024 in detail, the graphs below show the relevant income increases compared to previous years. Total contributions were the highest ever for the main parties analyzed, even if in some cases contributions above 10 SMB were higher in other years than in 2024. Overall, PSD collected 22 million (of which 1.25 million below 10 SMB), and PNL 14 million. USR and PNL were the best in donations. PSD was the best in loans – 47 million lei above 100 SMB, to which is added 19.7 million from loans below 330,000 lei. PNL
• We also note that a phenomenon that had been dormant for many years has returned in force, namely loans and donations obtained from legal entities. PSD, for example, obtained 3.2 million in large donations from companies, in the context of which it had obtained 1.1 million in 2014 and 5 million in 2008. It also obtained loans of 37 million lei. PNL also had a similar trajectory, and last year it received 2.6 million lei. USR had no income from legal entities. PNL declared few funds from loans – a single loan from a legal entity (500,000 lei), 450,000 lei from an individual and 531,562 lei; this statistic is perhaps also determined by the precarious financial situation in which the party found itself, especially in the second half of the year. However, they mostly come from the Constanța area.

 

Natural persons

The largest part comes from large donations from individuals, in the context where the PNL declared 130 million lei, which also includes contributions from the party’s elected candidates for the campaign. The PSD, on the other hand, declared 47 million lei in loans from individuals, the USR declared 9 million, and the AUR 5 million. The PNL declared 3.6 million lei in contributions over 10 SMBs and the PSD 1.3 million.

At PSD, most of the money went to the central headquarters. At PNL, after the central headquarters, most of the money went to the accounts of the Argeș, Galați, Maramureș and Botoșani branches (between 4 and 4.6 million lei). At USR, 5.5 million went to the central headquarters, and 1.2 million to Iași. At AUR, all the money went to the central headquarters. At REPER, 2.3 million lei out of 2.5 million lei went to the central headquarters.

 

 

 Legal entities – loans and donations

At PSD, almost 3/4 of the money was declared before the presidential elections, in October and November. At AUR, all the money was declared on October 29 and 30. At PNL, 1.4 million was declared before the European Parliament/local elections.

At PSD, 37 out of 40 million lei were declared at the central headquarters, and 2.5 million lei at Prahova. At PNL, half of the money (1.3 million lei) came from Constanța, 248 thousand lei from Brașov and 175 thousand lei from Botoșani. At AUR, the money went to the central headquarters.

 

 

Limitations of the analysis

• We analyzed over 200 names, both natural and legal persons. Some names are common or not conclusive, so we cannot know exactly who the funders are. Where there was a potential for confusion, we noted them, and where we did not find any information about the person in question, we did not create a profile. There are a few such cases, but they represent an insignificant proportion. Given that we do not have access to personal data such as CNP, which would help us to more clearly establish the identity of a person, we relied on circumstantial data, which generates a margin of error. We compared this data with publicly available information regarding people with the same name, where this was possible, in an attempt to build a probable profile of the donor. For any errors, you can write to us at office@expertforum, to review the text.
• This report does not include financial certainties or investigations based on non-public documents. What we can do, as an organization that works exclusively with public data, is only to point out some indicators of possible irregularities and transmit them to the relevant institutions, to carefully analyze whether our hypotheses can indeed be verified.
• The analysis is based only on data from open sources, including the Official Gazette, the income and expenditure reports of political parties, the press, the banipartide.ro portal, declarations of assets and interests, the websites of some institutions, the Trade Register/termene.ro/totalfirme.ro, the DNA website, the courts portal, the Ministry of Finance website, the data.gov.ro portal (financial data)
• The fact that most of the funds have reached the headquarters limits the ability to profile donors who come from outside Bucharest.
• For reasons related to the large amount of information, the analysis does not include all persons whose names are published according to Articles 49 and 51 of Law 334/2006, but only a selection that includes the largest donations, contributions, loans, above the declaration thresholds in the Official Gazette.
• Income tax returns do not necessarily reflect current income – especially for salaries or other income included in the last section of the return – but rather for the previous year. Therefore, the analysis is more of an estimate when it comes to income and we relied as much as possible on the other sections – for example, money in accounts or debts – to understand what the income level is.
• We do not know if all the information related to the financial statements on mfinante.gov.ro is up to date. For example, some entities appear with reports in 2025, but there is no data for 2024 published on the site. One such case is SOS Romania.
• We do not know exactly when the loans are being repaid. In some cases the parties mentioned it, but in most cases we do not know if the money was repaid until the data was published (April 2025).

Relevant rules

To better understand the rules that guide this process, we explain the most important ones below:

• The annual financial limits for funds paid to a party are as follows: the equivalent of 200 gross minimum wages (GMW) for donations and loans from individuals, 500 GMW for donations and loans from legal entities, 48 ​​GMW for contributions. In 2024, the GMW was 3,300 lei, so the limits are: 660,000 lei, 1,650,000 lei and 158,400 lei 
• The limits are calculated per party and type of income, there is no upper limit per person. In theory, a person can give donations, loans and contributions to one or more parties. At the same time, they can also give money to the electoral campaign, where the limits are similar. In 2024, a person/entity could give to parties and to each of the 4 electoral campaigns.
• A person can donate as an individual, but also through a company, which is a legal entity. Importantly, the law establishes an upper limit for persons who own several commercial companies, directly or indirectly, through which they could give money to political parties – “Art. 7 – (4) of Law 334/2006 The total value of the sums of money that are the subject of loans granted to political parties by legal persons controlled directly or indirectly by another person or by a group of natural or legal persons cannot exceed the limits provided for in para. (1) – (3).” Similar regulations apply to donations.
• Legal entities cannot donate to a candidate, only to a party, outside of the election campaign.
• The law prohibits the acceptance in any form, direct or indirect, by political parties of donations of material goods or sums of money or the provision of free services made with the obvious purpose of obtaining an economic advantage or from companies that have outstanding debts to the state budget older than 60 days.
• Contributions from party members for the campaign are recorded as donations. – Art 38 paragraph (4) of Law 334/2006, The amounts of money received from candidates proposed for elections by a political party are considered donations and the provisions of this law are applied accordingly. This explains, for example, why the PNL declared donations of 130 million in 2024.
• Parties can transfer these funds to the campaign, within the maximum spending limits, and recover them through reimbursements from the state budget, if they obtain more than 3% of the votes and submit an application to the AEP. For example, the spending limit for presidential elections is 20,000 GMW, which means 66 million lei in 2024.
• Refunds are made, according to the law, within 90 days of the election date, after verification of income and expense reports. Parties or candidates can return all funds to a donor.

The initiative is carried out through the PROTEUS project implemented by The Transatlantic Foundation and co-funded by the European Union. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.