PUBLIC NOTICE

A law that restricts more than it clarifies: risks to democracy in Colombia

July 2025

With more than 37 years of experience measuring public opinion in Colombia with rigor and transparency, the Centro Nacional de Consultoría expresses its surprise at the fact that, in an environment that should promote pluralism and the right to information—where influencers, platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and WhatsApp chains predominate—the decision has been made to restrict the only source of information that guarantees transparency and traceability: surveys with fact sheets. Given this situation, the Centro Nacional de Consultoría expresses its deep concern about the content and scope of Bill No. 569 of 2025, approved by the Congress of the Republic and filed in Congressional Gazette No. 675 of 2024.

The bill introduces excessive restrictions, worrying ambiguities, and potential violations of the constitutional principles of freedom of expression, the right to information, and the right to be elected (Articles 20 and 40 of the Political Constitution).

Additionally, it is important to note that the legislative process for this law is substantially incorrect, as it directly regulates the fundamental right to freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 20 of the Political Constitution. This right guarantees every person the freedom to express and disseminate their thoughts and opinions, to inform and receive truthful and impartial information, and to establish media outlets without censorship.

In this sense, as established by the Constitutional Court, when a law regulates, develops, or limits the exercise of a fundamental right, it must be processed as a statutory law, which requires a special procedure distinct from that of an ordinary law. This process includes approval by an absolute majority of the members of Congress, mandatory prior review by the Constitutional Court, and the possibility for any citizen to intervene to support or challenge its content. The procedure followed for this legislative initiative—as an ordinary law—is therefore unconstitutional, which vitiates not only its form but also its substantive validity, as it seeks to impose restrictions on the free exercise of expression, information, and media establishment without the enhanced debate and qualified majorities required by statutory law.

What is clearly damaging: the sample design as a barrier to entry

Article 4 of the bill establishes that all electoral surveys must have a maximum margin of error of 3% at the national level and 5% at the departmental, district, or municipal level, with a confidence level of 95% and a design effect of up to 2.0. This requires, for example, conducting a minimum of 2,135 household surveys, and with a design effect of 1.3, there would be 1,388 telephone surveys nationwide, which is economically unviable for most organizations or media outlets. The objective of sampling is to reduce uncertainty within the limits allowed by a given budget.

Paradoxically, while attempting to strengthen statistical reliability, what is achieved is to restrict research to a few actors with significant financial capacity, eliminating alternative voices and undermining pluralism.

The direct consequence is a drastically reduced number of surveys available for public debate, resulting in less informed elections. This will further open the door to narratives constructed by partisan interests without technical verification, contrary to democracy. Political parties would be responsible for spreading the word that they are winning.

The restriction bordering on censorship: surveys conducted only three months prior to the first day of registration...

Article 5 states, "...surveys that include questions related to voting intention may only be conducted three months prior to the first day of registration..."

This limitation undermines the democratic process itself, as it prevents pre-candidates from measuring their growth, evaluating the receptivity of their proposals, or making decisions based on evidence. Building a presidential candidacy cannot be achieved in three months.

Polls empower the people and disempower politicians. By restricting polls, decisions end up in the hands of political leaders and less in the hands of the people who express themselves through polls.

This provision violates citizens' right to information and their right to participate in the formation of political power (Article 40 of the Constitution), which includes the right to be sufficiently informed to choose. The ban not only narrows the window for participation but also limits informed public debate, replacing evidence with propaganda.

The ambiguity that threatens equality: who can be measured

The same fifth article establishes that when asking about public figures "eligible for election," those with "significant public notoriety," "have participated in previous similar elections," or "have manifest favorability or recognition" must be included.

This raises serious problems:

• How is who is "eligible for election" defined?

• How do we know who the candidates are when there are no registrations yet?

• Who defines significant public notoriety?

• Why do those who have participated in similar elections have privileges?

• What are similar elections?

• What about new leaders, alternative candidates, or emerging figures?

These definitions are vague, open to interpretation, and can be used to exclude, discriminate against, or make invisible other candidates. In fact, they contradict Article 40 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right of all citizens to be elected without prior media or electoral recognition becoming a barrier.

And internal polls? Another gray area

Another worrying ambiguity is that the law claims to regulate the conduct and dissemination of polls, but cannot refer to polls that are not intended for publication.

Internal polls, which are not disclosed, are part of legitimate campaign strategies, as they allow political teams to make decisions about the approach, questions, messages, and resource allocation. Pretending that these polls should also be subject to regulation or must be submitted to the National Electoral Council (CNE) violates the autonomy of campaigns and ignores the confidential nature of strategic information, which includes both the questions asked and the results obtained. Mandating their registration or reporting would be an undue intrusion that undermines the fairness of political competition.

Threat to privacy and undue state intervention in the private sector.

The law requires the delivery of primary survey records, which may violate the right to privacy and the protection of personal data enshrined in Law 1581 of 2012. The requirement to "deliver the computer code used to replicate the sample selection" raises concerns about how sensitive data associated with proprietary methodologies used by industry companies is managed and protected, affecting those companies' free competition.

Restricting surveys weakens democracy.

Finally, the spirit of the bill ignores the fundamental contribution that surveys make to democracy. Indeed, the evaluation of leaders allows citizens to express themselves and establishes healthy competition among leaders.

By disproportionately restricting the ability to measure and disseminate public opinion, especially regarding mayors, governors, and other local actors, the bill silences the voice of citizens precisely where democratic oversight is most needed: in remote municipalities and territories, where institutional control is often weakest. Furthermore, it represents a threat to the privacy of those who conduct internal surveys for strategic purposes and constitutes undue state intervention in the decisions and dynamics of the private sector, affecting the free exercise of research and business autonomy.

It restricts the ability of public opinion to express itself on the more than 1,000 small municipalities that, precisely, most require citizen oversight, and it ignores the essential role that surveys play in building a viable candidacy, understood as an undertaking with a profound impact on democracy.

Centro Nacional de Consultoría