Election candidates have just signed a declaration claiming they have spent no more than €1,398 (Lm600) on their respective campaigns, even though many of them held lavish parties as well as distributed propaganda flyers and DVDs.
Candidates submitted a return to the Electoral Commission last week, signed under oath, listing the expenses and revenue incurred during the five-week campaign leading to the March 8 election.
The relevant legislation, drawn up in 1981, states that no sum shall be paid and no expense shall be incurred by a candidate in excess of €1,398 at an election. The figure includes any expenses incurred by the candidate's friends and supporters.
The punishment for a candidate exceeding that limit is severe - he or she can be evicted from Parliament if elected.
Candidates who spoke with The Sunday Times said they needed at least Lm6,000 (€13,980) to run a good campaign and raise awareness among voters.
Household flyers alone cost at least one cent each. One candidate contesting the ninth and tenth districts sent eight different colour leaflets.
Others organised receptions with free-flowing alcohol, entertainment, video presentations and hampers.
The two parties appear to be in agreement that it is high time for the law to be revisited. Amending the legislation requires a two-thirds majority in parliament.
Labour deputy leader Michael Falzon said after nearly 30 years the parties need to re-adjust the costs of an election campaign.
Likewise, Henri Darmanin, the head of the Nationalist Party's electoral office described the spending limit as ridiculously low.
Mr Darmanin said he believed that the majority of candidates, especially the ones contesting for the first time, did abide by the threshold set, but admitted that some of the familiar faces might not have.
Nationalist candidate Georg Sapiano, who failed to get elected, is one of a just a handful who took a stand on principle and refused to send any propaganda material.
"I campaigned for the second preference of 9th district voters, after Lawrence Gonzi, and obtained close to 800 of those without organising any parties or sending leaflets. It's fair to assume that a proper campaign might have produced a better result but I don't want to dwell on my own case," said Dr Sapiano, insisting he had a problem with taking false oath, irrespective of his electoral fortunes.
When contacted, Dr Sapiano said that many candidates he spoke to were not really aware that they were breaking the law and therefore could not be accused of taking false oath.
The law makes it clear that all money provided by any person other than the candidate for any expenses incurred on account of, or in respect of the conduct or management of the election, whether as a gift, loan, advance or deposit, shall be paid to the candidate or his election agent, and not otherwise. Dr Sapiano said: "I only ended up questioning it because I decided to read up on the law governing my involvement in politics. On the other hand, for those who are fully aware of the law there is clearly the potential for conflict.
"They must choose between the desire to avoid taking false oath and the necessity of playing the electoral game in a way that gives you the chance of winning it."
A lawyer by profession, Dr Sapiano said he interpreted the constitutional right of free expression to include the right of a candidate to tell his electors, at least once, that he is standing for the election.
With €1,398, candidates simply cannot do that because mailing a single leaflet to around 12,000 households in each district costs more. In Dr Sapiano's view therefore, this law is unconstitutional.
Dr Sapiano said the law needs updating to reflect today's cost of living but cannot be increased so much so as to put at a disadvantage young candidates or those on a modest salary.
Any new law purporting to govern the relationship between politics and money will touch upon several complex issues. What is certain is that the thrust of a new law must not be to give wealthy individuals, or representatives of powerful lobbies, 'privileged access' to parliament.
In Dr Sapiano's view, this unchanged threshold unduly and unfairly limits the free exchange of information in our democracy. It should be changed, or else challenged in court.
Electoral Commission assistant director George Saliba said the submissions under oath made by the candidates will be open for public scrutiny shortly.
Asked who was responsible for probing candidates in case of reports that they were not in line, Mr Saliba said it was "probably the police," pointing out, though, that he was not aware of anybody who has ever been investigated for exceeding the spending threshold.