The recent revelations of Médiapart on the mismanagement of the expenses of mandate of the Hérault deputy, Coralie Dubost, question on what it is possible or not to finance with. We take stock.
“The mirobolantes expense reports from Coralie Dubost“will have been right to the LREM deputy from Hérault. After the revelations of Médiapart on excessive invoices of several thousand euros, 3,000 euros of clothes and lingerie per month, restaurants at the beach and “non-existent” works according to the media, Coralie Dubost decided to give up politics following the controversy.
In a press release, the MP denounces a “cabal unparliamentary“, a “phantasmagoric lynching” and highlights the need to “protect the child I am carrying of all the vicissitudes of the exhibition and political life.”
Then comes the question: how money order fees can be spent ?
How much does a deputy have?
First of all, it is necessary to establish the total amount from which the deputies benefit during their term of office. Thus, since 1 January 2018, MEPs have benefited from an advance on mandate expenses of an amount of €5,373 per month. Unlike the old system (IRFM), elected officials must now justify every penny spent using supporting documents.
To this sum is added the remuneration: €7,239.91 gross monthly, it is in a way his salary. As well as €18,950 per year to be equipped with office automation and “to take charge of taxi or VTC races, telephone expenses, mail, etc”, indicates the National Assembly.
Other allowances can be paid as to look after her children or pay hotel nights when the chambers of the Assembly are not free. Many journeys are also covered, MPs benefit on request from an unlimited RATP card as well as the cost of 80 round trips between Paris and the latter’s constituency.
Finally, the deputy has an envelope of €10,581 per month to hire up to five employees.
To do what ?
On paper “mandate fees must, for each deputy, be directly linked not only with his capacity but also with the exercise of his parliamentary mandate and his inseparable from political activity.“These costs must in no case “pursue the objective increase in personal wealth of the deputy, his relatives or his collaborators”, specifies a decree of 2018.
But above all, these must be “reasonable”, without however clearly knowing the limits. Because if the “prohibited expenses” are included in a well-defined framework, the rest is not subject to any rule, except common sense.
What is not eligible
Several costs are not liable to be covered and they are clearly defined. Thus, it is impossible to pay money for political parties or to use money to support a campaign or a project. But also the finesadministrative sanctions, penalties or fees due due to faulty behavior by the Member, expenses related to a local mandate or a voluntary activity.
It is also prohibited to finance the purchase of real estateto rent an apartment of which the Member, his spouse, his ascendants or
descendants are owners, dbuy a vehicle before the end of the mandate or to carry out “major works” within the meaning of the provisions of the Civil Code carried out in the parliamentary office of which the deputy is the owner. And of course the “personal” expenses.
What he is
On the other hand, a whole bunch of expenditure is exposed as eligible for reimbursement by the National Assembly. First of all, the expenses related to the use of premises as well as the necessary equipment and associated supplies: permanenceoffice furniture, heating… As said above, the transports are fully covered but also the purchase of a vehicle and actual costs related to its use. The member can also rent an apartment in Paris or in a small crown which he will have to furnish and equip at his expense.
“Expenses incurred for receptions organized within the framework of the mandate, transport costs for guests, catering services” are authorized. Coralie Dubost’s expense reports at Bonaventure beach or in the domain of Verchant can therefore, if they are reasonable, be reimbursed.
The purchase of clothes, as alleged in the Coralie Dubost case, is also not necessarily considered as “personal expenses”. These are representation costs linked to the person but always within a reasonable framework. What the deputy Coralie Dubost defended herself by indicating that she had professional outfits and personal outfits.
In this case it is all the “reasonableness” of the expenses in question, if the MP has been transparent the amounts spent do not pass.