Not any more absurd than claiming that nobody has the right to challenge the definition of what "free and fair" according the laws of a specific state (regardless if one agrees with that definition or not).

The fair bit requires everyone following fair election laws.

Think of it like a game, it’s only fair if the rules are unbiased and everyone to follow them. There’s a wide range of possible rules for a fair game, but allowing one player to cheat is equivalent to unfair rules.

So sure, you can have fair elections where no candidate needs to disclose their net worth, or fair elections where everyone is registered to share their net worth, but you can’t have a fair election where some people are registered to share their net worth.

> you can’t have a fair election where some people are registered to share their net worth.

Didn't he do that? As for the election spending even if he's lying about the spending they can't prosecute and convict him without delaying the elections for many months if not more.

At this point any outcome seems like a huge failure of the Romanian electoral/political/legal systems.

I don’t actually know the specifics. I brought it up as a possible silly election law that could still be considered “fair”.

I was arguing against the specific claim that a "free and fair" election is one that is consistent with the laws of the country the election is being run in.

In fact, I think your response proves my point. What you're saying is that the specifics of the laws matter - i.e, whether or not a election is "free or fair" depend on _what_ the rules of the game are, not only on the fact that they are the rules.