The Malta Green Party (ADPD – Alternattiva Demokratika Partit Demokratiku) is pushing for an overhaul of the island's political financing rules. With Malta's general election scheduled for May 30, 2026, ADPD is intensifying demands that the state step in with both funding and enforcement after the two dominant parties spent what ADPD describes as multi-million euro sums on their recent campaigns—without clear accountability.
Why This Matters
• State funding could be extended to all parties meeting a minimum vote threshold, not just parliamentary groups
• Donations above €100 would be logged in a public digital register under ADPD's proposal
• Party-owned companies face calls for urgent scrutiny over alleged illegal financial support
• Outstanding debts to public entities by the Labour and Nationalist parties reportedly run into the millions
A System Built for Two
ADPD's core argument rests on a structural flaw: Malta's political finance regime, enshrined in the Financing of Political Parties Act (CAP 544) since 2016, permits what the Greens call self-regulation by the major parties. The Electoral Commission, tasked with oversight, is composed largely of representatives from parliamentary groups—a setup ADPD contends undermines impartiality.
The lack of public funding in Malta stands in stark contrast to EU standards, where European political parties receive up to 95% of their reimbursable costs from the EU budget. In Malta, parties rely entirely on private donations and commercial revenue, creating what ADPD describes as an unlevel playing field that favors established groups with deep-pocketed backers.
Current rules cap individual donations at €25,000 per year, but that ceiling was effectively neutered by a 2018 Constitutional Court ruling that stripped the Electoral Commission of its power to impose administrative fines. Donors who contribute more than €7,000 must be named in public reports; those who give slightly less remain anonymous. ADPD argues this creates an obvious loophole.
The Cost of Campaigning
Campaign spending by the Labour Party (PL) and the Nationalist Party (PN) in the run-up to the general election on 30 May 2026 underscores ADPD's concerns. The two parties' electoral manifestos alone carried five-year price tags of €6.3 billion and €6.7 billion respectively, reflecting sprawling commitments on tax cuts, pensions, healthcare, and infrastructure.
While those figures represent long-term policy costs rather than immediate campaign expenditure, an analysis of Meta's ad transparency database revealed that by October 2025, the PL, PN, and their candidates had collectively spent up to €1.4 M on Facebook and Instagram political advertising. Meta subsequently banned political ads across the EU that same month amid concerns over election integrity and disinformation.
Comprehensive data on total campaign spending remains elusive. Under Maltese law, candidates' financial disclosures are available to the public for just two weeks after results are published, and the Electoral Commission does not maintain or release that data afterward. Individual candidates are limited to spending no more than €20,000 per district they contest, but there are no spending caps on parties themselves.
ADPD, by contrast, reported a deficit of €4,958 for the year ending 31 December 2022, driven by expenses from the March 2022 general elections.
What ADPD Wants Changed
The Green Party's reform package targets three fronts: transparency, enforcement, and funding.
On transparency, ADPD proposes that all donations exceeding €100 from a single source be recorded in a freely accessible digital database, a dramatic reduction from the current €7,000 disclosure threshold. Election expenses would be published online immediately after polls close and remain available for at least two months. The party also demands urgent examination of companies owned by the PL and PN, which it suspects may be illegally channeling cash or in-kind support.
For enforcement, ADPD wants the Electoral Commission restructured to exclude parliamentary party representatives and equipped with adequate resources and powers to investigate, fine, and sanction violators. The 2018 court ruling that weakened the Commission's authority would need to be reversed or circumvented by fresh legislation.
On funding, ADPD advocates extending state subsidies to all registered parties that clear a minimum support threshold—not only those with seats in parliament. The party has previously floated a model in which the state provides €3 for every vote obtained nationally in general or European elections, contingent on strict auditing requirements. This, ADPD argues, would reduce reliance on large private donors and strengthen democratic competition.
The Debt Question
Another pillar of ADPD's critique concerns the use of public property. The Green Party asserts that both the Labour Party and Nationalist Party owe millions of euros to public entities for the use of state-owned facilities—some charged at commercial rates, others not. ADPD describes this arrangement as an "abusive system" that effectively subsidizes the major parties' operations while saddling taxpayers with unpaid bills. The party is calling for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny over how public property is allocated and priced when used for political purposes.
How Malta Measures Up
Compared to the EU's Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2025/2445, which governs funding of European political parties operating at the EU level, Malta's national framework falls short on several counts. European rules cap donations at €18,000 per year and require immediate reporting of contributions above €12,000. A new "due diligence mechanism" mandates that parties collect identification data for donors giving more than €3,000.
Malta's higher thresholds and weaker enforcement mean that large donations can flow with minimal oversight. The absence of public funding, combined with the Electoral Commission's limited powers, creates what transparency advocates describe as a permissive environment for undisclosed influence.
Trade unions are permitted to donate in Malta, while corporate contributions face restrictions, and anonymous donations are banned outright. Vote buying is illegal, but the lack of spending caps and the short public-disclosure window for campaign finances mean that enforcement remains patchy.
Impact on Voters and Smaller Parties
For residents, the immediate consequence of Malta's financing rules is a political landscape dominated by two parties with access to resources smaller competitors cannot match. ADPD's proposals, if enacted, would lower the barrier to entry for emerging parties and independent candidates, potentially diversifying the policy debate.
The practical effect of stricter donation disclosure would be to reveal which individuals and interests fund political campaigns—a form of accountability that could influence voter choices and reduce the perception of backroom dealing. Enhanced scrutiny of party-owned companies could also surface conflicts of interest or improper subsidies that currently escape public attention.
For taxpayers, the question of unpaid debts to public entities is more than symbolic. If the two major parties are indeed using public property while deferring payment, that shortfall must be covered either by higher fees for other users or by foregone revenue that might otherwise fund public services.
What Comes Next
ADPD has framed its financing reforms as urgent, but legislative change depends on the willingness of the very parties that benefit from the current system to vote for its overhaul. The Malta Parliament remains split between Labour and the Nationalists, neither of which has publicly embraced state funding or aggressive donation disclosure.
The Electoral Commission, meanwhile, continues to operate under the constraints imposed by the 2018 court ruling. Without fresh legislation or a reversal of that judgment, its capacity to enforce even existing rules remains limited.
ADPD's call for a lobbying register and public minutes of policy meetings adds another layer to the transparency agenda, one that extends beyond campaign finance to the day-to-day influence of private interests on government decision-making.
Whether Malta's political finance regime will converge with EU norms or remain an outlier depends, in the end, on whether voters reward or punish parties for their financing practices—and whether smaller parties like ADPD can sustain enough pressure to force the issue onto the legislative agenda.
