Transparency and accountability mark a fresh cycle for political parties with each electoral call. The body tasked with oversight has a leader who explains this oversight in a short video. In under two minutes, the control body is shown to fulfill its mandate. The projected total cost stands at 110 million Euros, with 50 million allocated for general elections and 60 million for local elections.
Facing the 23J vote and amid ongoing interruptions, beyond the known infrastructures a mechanism was introduced to reveal party infrastructure through ballot boxes and results. Campaigns incur costs, partly financed from public funds. The state subsidizes entities represented in prior appointments, and for general elections it contributes based on three factors: seats held, votes in Congress, and votes in the Senate.
The Congressional and Senate party lists for the 23J are published in the BOE.
According to the May 30 directive, parties receive 21,167.64 Euros per seat in either chamber. This translates to a subsidy of 0.81 Euros for each Congress vote if a seat exists, and 0.32 Euros per Senate vote for elected senators. The central budget is managed by the parties, yet the provincial populations and local electorates still play a role. The accompanying table details the implications for each ballot box, with the larger parties receiving a clear advantage. The results show that the economic plan benefits the PP and PSOE, the only parties represented in the Senate, reaching figures of 163,066.88 and 154,546.56 Euros respectively within the Alicante constituency.
In the final tally, Alicante voters account for 1,298,277.67 Euros in public funding. The education sector reveals that PP and PSOE receive over 450,000 Euros, while others remain below 200,000 Euros.
As with any democratic process, the Electoral Regime Law imposes limits. If followed, parties cannot spend more than 703,589.78 Euros on elections and 300,441.41 Euros on messaging. This restriction is contentious due to paper costs and environmental concerns, and it shows little appetite for change.
Political parties will receive more than three million euros for the regional campaign
Apart from central proposals to optimize maritime transport, the oversight body has spent years pursuing a change that aligns with contemporary realities. The agency now invites voters to evaluate the feasibility of designing and implementing direct and personal delivery of envelopes, ballot papers, or election propaganda as currently practiced. This new approach mirrors advances in media and technology, providing guarantees in execution and aiming to reduce public funds.
The reluctance to act stems from the important information the electoral count provides to formations, which critics say ends up in the trash or in voters’ homes.
Citizen, 1.5 million in public savings
After the year began and the local and regional electoral surge, Ciudadanos chose not to call for the next general election. It was debated internally but economically the party saw avoiding a larger problem. The orange formation disclosed campaign expenses totaling 10,142,894.02 Euros dated 10 November 2019. Of this, 6,066,893.90 Euros came from debt channels, 2.9 million from subsidy advances, and the remaining 1.6 million from party contributions. The decision also signifies savings of 1,548,427.58 Euros per vote and seat held (10) in Congress, given there is no Senate seat.
2019 reference
The latest economic reference for election spending comes from an inspection report on the 10 November 2019 elections, published by the Court of Accounts. Twenty-two parties declared a total of 49 million Euros, with 43.93% from bank debts, 27.70% from electoral subsidies, 28.29% from party contributions, and the remainder from private gifts.
After regulatory checks, the figure was adjusted to 48.93 million Euros, with 48.27% allocated to routine operations and 51.73% to direct and personal election propaganda mail. The document shows twelve entities meeting all subsidy requirements.
On the other hand, notes highlight that 531,912 Euros were not electoral, 381,706 Euros were irregular spending, 5,782 Euros spent after the period, and 11,645 Euros for unjustified expenses.
A photo caption shows envelopes and ballots in a Benidorm ballot box, attributed to a commentator.
From these points the oversight body issued a dozen recommendations. One key limit is avoiding outreach based on nonlocal voter connections. It notes a population drop of 600,000 in Alicante. Another suggestion is to modernize advertising expenses by incorporating digital media and prioritizing the expense tab overall.
This week the control body plans to approve an instruction to be published on its site and in the BOE. The document will guide party managers on the forthcoming procedures. Entities will have a window of 100 to 125 days to provide accounting after July 23. The audit will take roughly five months, including the claims period. In the Valencian Community, a corresponding local and regional election audit will be conducted by the Court of Auditors.
What did they spend the money on in the last 10N?
Nearly two hundred audit reports covered the expenditures of 22 political parties that took part in the 2019 general elections and received public funds. The Court of Accounts compiles and details how funds were used, and the oversight authority can reduce subsidies or impose fines based on party submissions. The report notes that all but Agrupación Socialista Gomera filed on time. It analyzes the accounts of the Valencian Community members in the Cortes Generales.
People’s Party led the spending with 12,492,694.61 Euros, showing 7.3 million in bank loans, 3.5 million in state advances, and 1.6 million from party contributions. Half of the funds went to ordinary expenses and half to sending election propaganda, ending with a treasury balance of 105,801.72 Euros.
PSOE made a notable shift by dropping outdoor advertising. Accounts totaled 10,692,088.49 Euros and were submitted on time without breaching LOREG limits. More than 60 percent funded miscellaneous expenses, including 1.3 million for press and radio ads, while the rest paid for propaganda. Debt sources included 6.9 million from debt transactions, with the remainder from electoral subsidies. A small invoice of 11,147.88 Euros was noted as pending.
Vox spent 2,807,096 Euros, well below the legal ceiling of 8.8 million. It relied entirely on internal contributions, ending with a minor debt to suppliers and a tiny treasury balance. Advertising was concentrated in online posts, while outdoor advertising represented a much smaller share. The Valencia Fair was the only supplier that did not remit timely information.
United in Action and other groups like Unidas Podemos reported varies levels of spending and debt, with some coalitions reporting strong reliance on contributions and others reporting modest budgets. The analysis highlights how digital and traditional channels shaped campaign expenditure and how special funds and subsidies influenced overall campaign dynamics.