SNS Campaign Costs: 181 Million Dinars, Student List 236
Preliminary reports on the Anti-Corruption Agency website show the SNS list reported less than the Student List, which Transparency Serbia calls a false picture.
The Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) list reported total campaign costs of slightly more than 181 million dinars for the October 25 election, while the Student List put its own spending at about 236 million dinars. The figures appear in preliminary campaign cost reports published on the website of the Anti-Corruption Agency.
By law, every list must file a preliminary report a week before voting, which this time fell on October 18. Final cost reports arrive later. Nemanja Nenadic, program director at Transparency Serbia, says the SNS report does not show the real size of its campaign.
What does the SNS list’s report say?
The largest single items cover advertising, rallies and transport:
- certification of voter signatures: about 5.3 million dinars
- rental of the Belgrade Arena for a rally in early October: 5.6 million dinars
- rental of the Ranko Zeravica Sports Hall for the closing rally: 556,100 dinars, reported as not yet paid
- advertising in total: about 49.2 million dinars
- transport to Novi Sad via Srbijavoz: 505,478 dinars
Within advertising, 8.5 million dinars went to Radio Television of Serbia, and NIN received 450,789 dinars. The firm Max strategic was paid 40.1 million dinars for promotion on internet portals and social networks. Separately, the report lists an advance of 158,486,355 dinars paid to the public broadcaster, with no invoices covering it.
The list of coach operators who drove rally attendees is long. It includes Tea travel, Pantransport, Beosonic, Galeb gobus and Banbus.
What does Transparency Serbia dispute in the reported costs?
Nenadic argues that the report leaves out part of the television advertising and shows some costs at lower amounts. Billboard rental, he says, is one example. Comparing with other lists, he states:
“SNS did not show advertising costs on some national-coverage television stations, and some were shown at a lower amount, as we also see in the case of billboard rental. Higher costs than this list were reported by the Student List and the SPS, but also by the Russian Party, which reported as much as 188 million dinars for material costs”
Nenadic adds that election participants take preliminary reports lightly, and that the Anti-Corruption Agency has so far not opened proceedings over obvious inconsistencies in them.
His estimate of the television side of the campaign goes much further than what was reported:
“In the period that the preliminary report was supposed to cover, up to October 18, the ‘Aleksandar Vucic - United Serbia’ list accounted for about 7.74 million euros of the total money the election lists reported for advertising, which is 89 percent of the total estimated value. Next come the SPS list with about 529,000 euros, the Student List with 275,000 euros, Authentic Right with 111,000 euros and Rasim Ljajic’s list with about 6,000 euros. The share of Aleksandar Vucic’s list in the estimated value of television advertising rose from about 60 percent in 2022 to 82 percent in 2023 and 89 percent in 2026. By the end of the campaign, this list’s estimated cost, for TV advertising alone, exceeded the legal limit of six million euros and reached almost a full 11 million”
As examples of booked airtime that is not permitted, Nenadic cites the broadcast of a rally in Lazarevac on one television station and of a rally in Novi Sad on five stations. Some stations, he adds, did not publish campaign price lists. “REM has not dealt with these issues so far,” he says.
How did the Student List cover 236 million dinars?
What Nenadic finds most unusual in the Student List’s report is the enormous number of contributions from citizens, which total 231.7 million dinars. Among contributions from legal entities, the largest came from the company Fruvita, at 540,000 dinars.
Preliminary reports are only the first layer of data. Only the final reports will show how much each list actually spent, and it is an open question whether the disputed points raised by Transparency Serbia will be resolved by then: television stations not shown, unpaid rentals and an advance without invoices.
