Our View: Understandable that election candidates ignore law on spending

What is the point of investigations into the expenditure of candidates during an election campaign, given that everyone exceeds the limit set by the law? Most candidates show complete disregard for this law, regardless of what type of elections they are standing in.

It was therefore no surprise to see the audit office’s report on Monday on candidate spending in the mayoral elections two years ago. Yiannis Armeftis, who was elected Limassol mayor, exceeded the €30,000 campaign spending limit by 105 per cent according to the audit office report, while Kyriakos Xydias, who won Amathounta, exceeded the €20,000 limit by 48 per cent. Another four candidates also exceeded the limits, according to the report.

These limits, which are determined by the number of voters in a municipality – hence the higher amount for Limassol – are ridiculously low in this day and age, and it is perfectly understandable that candidates ignore them, some openly others secretly. The auditor-general acknowledges this point, explaining that the law only covers spending on advertising, saying that most spending is outside this field. For example, big campaign events could be paid for by a supporter of a candidate and therefore not feature in their election accounts. An advertising bill could also be picked up by a third party, or paid in cash by a candidate, something not unheard of in Cyprus.

The reasoning for spending limits in election campaigns is to ensure a level playing field for all candidates’ campaigns, but it is naïve to think that it works. President Nikos Christodoulides’ associate Giorgos Lakkotrypis, a former energy minister, explained on camera how candidates get round the law. He said that because there was a limit on election campaign spending, a candidate like Christodoulides could accept cash contributions to his campaign that were untraceable and he suggested this had been done in the past, without any problems being created. This money is kept out of the candidate’s campaign accounts, but it is spent.

This lack of transparency, facilitated by cash payments, features in all election campaigns. In May we will have parliamentary elections and the billboards with candidates have been everywhere for months now. The audit office would be able to check what was spent on billboards and social media, but if a candidate throws a lavish cocktail party for voters and does not declare the expense how would anyone know about it?

It is very difficult to keep track of election campaign spending. The truth is that candidates spend as much money as they can afford, even if this is double or triple the limit set by the law, in the hope that this would give them an electoral advantage. Some have been fined in the past for overspending, but it is a tiny number. The rest break the law with impunity, because a restricted report by the audit office two years after elections are held does not act as a deterrent to law-breaking. And somehow we doubt deputies would ever vote for more effective controls on campaign spending.