For weeks now, countless people have abandoned their homes every morning and evening to roam from one political gathering to another, plate in hand, drink in the other, happily surviving on a campaign-funded diet. Why cook at home when there are free sausages in one village, pastizzi in another and cocktails somewhere else?

Some people have become so efficient that they probably know the campaign menus better than the candidates know their manifestos. There are those who start with a brunch with one candidate and move on to a pasta night organised by another, taking a nap to digest in between. Election campaigns have become less about political persuasion and more about strategic meal planning. Where free food and drink is offered, most Maltese do not say no.

And one should not underestimate the determination involved. People queue patiently for food they would never wait for at a restaurant. They enthusiastically attend events hosted by candidates they have absolutely no intention of voting for. Political loyalty, after all, should never interfere with a free platter.

This is modern campaigning in Malta: a travelling feast accompanied by speeches that many politely tolerate while eyeing the buffet table.

Candidates appear to have concluded that the way to voters' hearts is through their stomachs. It is no longer enough to shake hands and distribute flyers. During this campaign, judging by what was posted on social media by candidates and their supporters, finger food, open bars, live music, branded cocktails and venues looked more suitable for wedding receptions than political meetings.

One almost expects candidates to start offering loyalty cards. Attend three activities and receive a complimentary bottle of wine.

Humour aside, however, there is a serious issue underneath the laughter and the full stomachs.

Campaigning costs money - substantial amounts of it. Renting prestigious venues is expensive. Food and drinks for hundreds of people are costly too. Printing endless streams of leaflets and banners costs money too. Social media campaigns, merchandise, transport and entertainment all add to the bill.

This inevitably raises an important question: how much are candidates actually spending?

Election laws exist for a reason. Spending limits are intended to create a level playing field and to prevent politics from becoming an arms race dominated by those with the deepest pockets or the richest backers. Democracy should not become a competition about who can organise the biggest party or provide the most generous catering, apart from free transport to the mass meetings.

Yet every election cycle, the same doubts emerge. Are all candidates really remaining within the legal limits? Or are some finding creative ways around them?

The explanation often given is that "friends helped out" or "supporters paid for the event". But such arguments stretch credibility when campaigns resemble corporate productions rather than modest political outreach. If a businessman covers the cost of an extravagant activity, does that somehow mean it should not count as campaign expenditure? If supporters provide services for free, should there not still be a transparent accounting of their value?

The public deserves better answers.

Transparency in campaign financing remains one of Malta's weak points. Regulations exist, but enforcement often appears limited and reporting mechanisms are not robust enough to inspire confidence. By the time declarations are filed, if they are filed properly at all, public attention has already moved elsewhere.

This matters because excessive spending creates risks that go far beyond campaign excess. It raises concerns about influence, obligations and expectations after the election is over. Large donations and hidden sponsorships are rarely acts of pure generosity. Politics should not become dependent on private benefactors who may later expect returns on their investment.

The issue is not whether candidates should meet voters socially. Political activities are part of democratic life.

But there must be greater accountability about who is paying for what and whether the rules are truly being respected.

Otherwise, voters may eventually discover that those free drinks and elaborate dinners were not free after all.