Alvise and the €100,000: the debate dividing his voters

Alvise and the €100,000 in cash: the scandal testing his voters

A cryptocurrency creator tells the Prosecutor's Office that he handed €100,000 in cash to Alvise for his campaign. The revelation, reported by several media outlets, has reignited the debate over the financing of the MEP's party and the credibility of those who voted for him. Far from dying down, the discussion has become a tug-of-war between those who demand a final court ruling before believing anything and those who consider that simply receiving black money is already a crime. In between, an uncomfortable question: how far does the presumption of innocence go when the accused is a newcomer to politics?

The origin of the scandal: €100,000 in cash

The news broke when the owner of a cryptocurrency platform, Cryptospain, told the Prosecutor's Office that he had given €100,000 in cash to Alvise to finance his campaign. According to that statement, the money would have been handed over outside the law, which limits donations to political parties to €50,000. Alvise himself, according to the messages, would have acknowledged receiving the money but not declaring it for tax. The figure is not insignificant: €100,000 in black money is, for many, proof that the character was not the champion of cleanliness he claimed to be.

The reaction on the forum was immediate. One participant summed it up ironically: "If they gift you 100,000 bucks in black money, it's a crime." Another added that any self-employed person handles such amounts without problems, but Alvise "gets caught in 6 months." The comparison with other cases of irregular financing—from Podemos to VOX—looms over the entire discussion. The question is whether Alvise's case is a crime or just an administrative blunder.

Presumption of innocence or final ruling?

Some participants cling to the presumption of innocence. "When I see a final ruling, I'll believe something," says one. Others go further and denounce a smear campaign orchestrated by the Government and its allied media. "Smear campaigns, unfounded accusations and hoaxes by the red government are our daily bread," one reads. The timing with other scandals affecting the PSOE and VOX fuels the sewer theory.

But not everyone buys that narrative. Some recall that irregular financing is something that "practically all parties have done" and that the penalty is usually financial. And some go further: "The mistake is thinking that this country can be fixed by voting." The discussion drifts toward widespread skepticism about the political class. A final ruling becomes the bar that some demand and others see as an excuse to avoid facing reality.

The profile of the character: from UpyD to the European Parliament

Alvise's trajectory is, to say the least, erratic. According to the messages, he was in UpyD, then in Ciudadanos, founded a party to the right of VOX and, once he won his seat, voted the same as Podemos. "He's a grifter of the old school. A mercenary of pseudo-politics," one participant concludes. The comparison with "Little Nicolás" is recurrent: both knew how to move on the margins of the system.

That profile has disappointed part of his electorate. "800,000 smartasses who thought they were voting for a mega-super-ultra-right party and the reality is they voted for a guy who considers Franco his enemy," another jokes. The accusation of being a "sewer operation" hovers over the thread. Who is behind it? "We only need to know which sewer," one wonders.

Private money and tax ethics: is tax evasion a duty?

One of the most repeated arguments is that the money was private and therefore there is no crime. "You can give a private individual whatever you want. It's a crime if it goes into the party's account," explains one participant. Under that logic, Alvise would have only committed a tax infraction, not a crime of illegal financing. The defense is completed with a criticism of the Tax Agency: "It is an ethical duty to evade taxes as much as possible."

The discussion drifts toward the role of the State and taxes. "For all they do with our taxes... They spend and squander our money and indebt us without us being able to decide anything," another complains. Tax outrage mixes with the Alvise case and turns the issue into a broader trial of the legitimacy of the tax system.

The political context: elections, media and sewers

The scandal cannot be understood without the electoral calendar. Several messages suggest that the operation against Alvise seeks to cover up other uncomfortable issues for the Government and to whitewash the PP ahead of possible snap elections. "If the official media now bring out this scandal, it is, on the one hand, to cover up the Begoña cases, but above all because there may be snap elections in a year," speculates one participant.

The sewer theory is reinforced by the coincidence of attacks against VOX and against Sánchez's circle. "They've also dug up a murky issue for VOX precisely now," it is noted. The conclusion of many is that the media act as a transmission belt for partisan interests. "I don't trust the media, the parties, and neither that PCM crypto con man," another summarizes.

The reaction of voters: between disappointment and unwavering support

Despite the scandal, some maintain their vote. "I will keep voting for him. They demonize him for having received €100,000 of private money from a private company and not having declared it for tax," says a defender. For this sector, the case is a smoke screen hiding the corruption of traditional parties. Loyalty to Alvise is sustained by contempt for the system.

Others, however, feel cheated. "Alvise has only served to benefit the PSOE, I don't know why so many fail to see it," laments one. The division is total: some see him as a martyr of political persecution; others, an opportunist who has used the Spanish flag to line his pockets. The looming question is whether this episode will mark the decline of his project or, on the contrary, strengthen his electoral base.

---

With the available data, the Alvise case remains open. The Prosecutor's Office investigates, the party keeps silent and voters are divided between indignation and die-hard defense. Are we witnessing the end of a political phenomenon or another chapter of a dirty war that knows no colors?