As in the case of party and campaign financing, the Nationalist and Labour parties have also avoided questions on a related issue: the expenditure of their individual candidates.
On paper, candidates’ campaigns are more strongly regulated than those of political parties. The General Election Act states that election candidates are to spend no more than €1,400 on their individual campaign, a limit interpreted to apply on a per-district basis.
Franco Debono campaigned vociferously on the issue of party financing, drafted a new law, and sent it to GRECO. When contacted yesterday he recalled how the Galdes report on party financing back in 1995 had found the campaign spending ceiling of then Lm600 (€1,400) as ridiculous. And, according to Dr Debono, even with inflation factored in, it is still ridiculously low.
He expressed his concern that the Electoral Commission had no means, or teeth, with which to monitor campaign spending.
There are some exemptions for personal expenses and for fees – not exceeding €235 – paid to candidates’ election agents. But the limit does not include expenses borne by any persons on candidates’ behalf.
The limit is considerably low – arguably ridiculously so – and the general perception is that it is widely disregarded.
These calculations exclude a few possible loopholes, including donations made to associations in one’s electoral district, arguably to curry favour.
One such example dates back to 2008: a band club was raising funds for feast decorations and publicly displayed donations over €50 in a huge board set up at its entrance. The most notable donors – each gave €5,000 – were three of the MPs elected in that district, representing both Labour and the PN. One of the MPs did not actually hail from the locality in question.
Obviously, such donations are not strictly campaign financing, but it is easy to imagine that they would not have been made – or would not have been as substantial – if the donors were not seeking to be elected to Parliament. It also suggests that their campaign budget may have been considerably larger.
The representatives of all three parties were asked three questions on the matter: whether they could correct the perception, as far as their party was concerned, that spending limits were routinely exceeded; whether they were aware of any of their candidates exceeding their limits; and what disciplinary action it would take in such cases.
But no replies were forthcoming from the PN and from Labour.
AD secretary-general Ralph Cassar, on the other hand, stressed that all the party’s candidates respected spending limits, even though the party believes that the limit should be raised to €4,000.
But the party also argues that this amount should include the expenditure made by the party at a national level, divided by the number of candidates.
AD insists that a commission appointed by the auditor general should verify each candidate’s accounts, and that campaign expenditure should be tax exempt.
As far as candidates are concerned, it also insists that public sector employees who choose to contest elections should not be penalised through the imposition of forced unpaid leave.
So far, admissions that spending limits have been breached are few and far between. Two candidates in the 2009 European elections had admitted to over-spending: the limit amounted to €18,635 in that case.
PN candidate Edward Demicoli admitted to spending over €52,000, while Labour candidate Sharon Ellul Bonici admitted to spending close to €57,000.
Mr Demicoli was adamant that his campaign had not been the most expensive of the lot: his campaign was certainly more modest than a number of others. He refused to take a false oath and declared that he was prepared to defend himself in court if called to do so.
No such action was taken against either candidate.
According to the General Elections Act, any candidates found to have committed illegal practices face a relatively small fine of €465, but are also banned from being elected to public office – and from being registered as a voter – for four years.
Candidates have to take an oath confirming their expenses before they are sworn in, so the possible implication of the present situation – that many MPs knowingly take a false oath on their expenses – is worrying. At the very least, it sheds doubt on the validity of the other oath MPs take: to faithfully serve the country and its people.