If the two main political parties think they can take the electorate for a ride as easily as they must have thought they could when they jointly wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives over the election expenditure issue, they are mistaken.

It may very well be the case that the masses that follow the two parties care very little about whether or not the candidates standing for election in their parties exceed the expenditure limit but the parties appear to keep forgetting the fact that the segment of uncommitted voters within the electorate is growing larger, not smaller, as shown by the results of recent elections. These people are not amused at the way the two parties have tackled the issue so far. If the Nationalist Party and the Labour Party are not aware of this sentiment, then they are distancing themselves from such voters.

Uncommitted voters must have surely taken notice of the parties' reaction to the issue and will definitely not forget it when the time comes for them to cast their vote again. It was only after the campaign for expenditure disclosure, spearheaded so vigorously by our sister newspaper The Sunday Times, reached its peak that the two parties finally decided to write to the Speaker urging for the select committee on constitutional change to discuss and revise regulations on election expenditure.

If the two parties had been aware of the fact that the election expenditure limit was too low, as they must have surely been, why have they taken so long to take action?

Arguing now that the law as it stands is full of ambiguities, and that, to boot, it is open to different interpretations, as it may very well be, will not absolve candidates who overspent in the election of their wrongdoing. The law is the law and Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi clearly allowed for no leeway when he said, well before the expiry of the time limit for the declaration of expenditure, that he expected all candidates to abide by the law. In view of the ambiguities indicated by some of the candidates, it may have been difficult following the letter of the law but what counts most is the spirit of the law.

According to an analysis made by The Sunday Times, at least eight MEP candidates appeared to have exceeded the legal limit of €18,635. Two candidates have admitted before a magistrate that they indeed did so and all the five elected MEPs have declared that their campaign expenses were within the limit. Two other candidates have filed a judicial protest calling for an investigation into the expenses of the candidates.

Claiming that several had breached the limit allowed by law, the two want the Attorney General to do his duty and order the Police Commissioner to look into the matter.

Many belonging to the segment of uncommitted voters would surely not be impressed by the argument as to when exactly a candidate is considered a candidate in the eyes of the law. It will be well for the select committee to go into the definition when the time comes for the law to be amended but, in the context of the present issue, the argument has been generally seen as political quibbling. Finding loopholes and ignoring the spirit of the law greatly undermine what ought to remain the most important asset in any politician's armoury: trust.