Gantz's Political Future Tied to State Funding Amid Election Campaign

Benny Gantz's political party, National Unity, is set to receive approximately 9.7 million shekels in state funding for the upcoming election campaign, despite recent polls indicating the party is significantly below the electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset. This substantial sum, intended to enable parties to run campaigns without relying solely on private donors, raises questions about the allocation of public funds to parties with a low probability of electoral success.

The funding mechanism, established by law, is largely based on a party's strength in the outgoing Knesset. However, this can lead to a disconnect between historical representation and current political viability. While parties that fail to pass the threshold typically face reduced future funding, the initial allocation allows them to conduct campaigns, potentially leaving the state to absorb unrecovered debts.

In contrast, newer parties like Gadi Eisenkot's "Yashar" can secure advances against bank guarantees, shifting financial risk to the guarantors. For instance, Yashar received 3.7 million shekels and has secured over 15 million shekels in additional guarantees. The case of Gilad Erdan's "Achi'ezer" party, which received 2.35 million shekels, illustrates how bank guarantees can be called upon when a party leader withdraws, with individuals like Yoav Gallant and Avinoam Erdan listed as guarantors.

Older parties, however, often carry accumulated debts from previous elections. These debts can be offset against ongoing funding if the party remains in the Knesset. If a party disappears from the Knesset, recovering these funds becomes more challenging, leaving the public purse at risk. The article also notes anomalies, such as Gideon Sa'ar's "New Hope" party receiving 5.8 million shekels despite Sa'ar now running under the Likud banner, due to the party's continued legal existence.

The current election cycle allows for higher spending by parties, even those with prior debts and diminished electoral prospects. The article suggests that parties confident in their chances could seek guarantees, thereby sharing financial risk with their supporters, rather than placing the entire burden on the public.