Prime Minister’s use of sponsored post not in breach of ethics, Standards Commissioner rules
The Standards Commissioner has ruled that there was no breach of ethics in a sponsored post showing Prime Minister Robert Abela giving details about the energy subsidy which was being given by the government.
In a ruling following a complaint filed by independent candidate Arnold Cassola, Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi said that the information given by the Prime Minister was of genuine public interest and that the expenses had been minimal.
Cassola had complained that the Prime Minister had used public money and went against guidelines drawn up by former commissioner George Hyzler.
In his ruling, which was made public by Cassola, the commissioner said that the footage lasts one minute and 11 seconds and, according to a letter received from the Office of the Prime Minister, the expenditure reached just €100. The PM had also explained that the film shows him explaining Malta’s position on the energy crisis.
According to the commissioner, the guidelines made a distinction between advertisements and promotional material. In this particular case, this sponsored post fell within the guidelines. The footage was not filmed as an advertisement, he said, but it was simply footage that showed the PM speaking about a meeting he had attended with other international leaders. The public has a right to be informed of such meetings, the commissioner ruled.
In this respect, the commissioner said that there was no need for further investigation.
Commenting on the outcome,
Cassola said that the Standards Commissioner has distinguished between adverts, which include “boosted or sponsored posts on social media”, and promotional material, which include “videos, graphics, documents and audio clips that are produced for circulation to the public by electronic means.”
The Commissioner reasoned that since the material in the sponsored post was not filmed purposely for the said sponsored post but was made up of an interview which the Prime Minister had given previously, then this did not qualify as an advert, since the Prime Minister was giving information.
The Commissioner thus concluded that this sponsored post does not constitute a breach of ethics: "because the Prime Minister was giving information of public interest about his meeting abroad" and "because the cost of this sponsored post, 100 euros, was minimal," Cassola said.
"The Commissioner for Standards has now set the precedent that any incumbent Prime Minister, Minister or other politicians with power are justified in spending public money to advertise their work as ministers, since they are "informing" about their work. So what is the use of having a public funded DOI, when these can be substituted by paid adverts?"
“Moreover, since the price of the advert is low - 100 euros - this is not a problem. Is it ok for a politician to use public money for 200 different adverts worth 100 euro each? One also wonders at what amount (1000? 10,000?) does using public money to publicise oneself in a single advert become a problem," Cassola said.