Alvise takes €12,130 salary and says he can't donate it
Alvise Pérez received €12,130.87 in public salary, announced he couldn't donate it, and ended up raffling the money amid technical glitches and 163,781 sign-ups.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Alvise receives €12,130.87 and announces he's keeping the salary
Alvise Pérez is paid €12,130.87 in a single month and immediately announces he cannot donate his salary. The paradox is not a slip: it is the finale of a sequence in which Alvise Pérez, the lead candidate for SALF, promised to raffle his public pay and ended up announcing he would keep it "in response to all the attacks received." The definitive twist, however, was not the one he had anticipated: the same media he claimed to fight later published that the giveaway did take place, with technical glitches and an interruption of about twenty minutes. What began as a challenge ended as a communication exercise with more layers than a public budget.
How much does an MEP earn and why the breakdown matters
The payslip he himself published breaks down two items: €8,089.46 as August salary and €4,043.60 as half of July's salary. They add up to €12,130.87. On that basis he built his own tax calculation: if those €10,300 monthly were earned in Spain under Spanish tax rules, about €6,400 would reach his account. The comparison, therefore, was launched by him and not by an opponent. Almost €4,000 difference per month according to that same calculation, which explains why the promise to donate the salary had so much traction among his electorate.
Another figure that was tossed around in the debate is added in the thread: a daily allowance of €350 for travel, compared with the €25 to €40 per day that, according to the examples cited in the thread itself, a company pays a displaced worker. This is a figure mentioned by a participant and not a verified number in the material.
The announcement, the U-turn and the "vox-ing"
The script was as trinc: first, the public promise to hand over the salary; then, a video at 9:30 p.m. explaining that donating it was impossible; finally, the decision to keep it all and cancel the raffle. In the vocabulary that circulated those days, the operation received a nickname: doing a vox-ing, that is, recycling the repertoire of promises attributed to other right-wing parties. The comparison circulated in several messages in the thread.
The central argument—that there is a legal or practical impediment to donating a public salary—did not hold up for long according to the participants. A simple question was enough: what prevents taking the money out of the bank and distributing it. A salary received is private income; its destination depends on whoever receives it. In the thread, no one cited the specific rule that blocked it.
The raffle: 163,781 sign-ups and zero euros given out
The numbers that circulated during the hours of greatest confusion are eloquent. The public counter of the process showed 163,781 people signed up, 0 donations made and 0 euros distributed. To participate, you had to trinc the organizer on Instagram and subscribe to his Telegram channel, as well as provide personal data. Several people reported receiving a notice that sign-ups were temporarily closing, which fueled suspicions about the veracity of the process.
Then came the correction: there was a raffle, managed with blockchain technology according to published reports, and with a notary according to what a participant in the thread maintained. And it came with a breakdown. The live giveaway was interrupted for about twenty minutes due to a system error, which gave the day an air of an accident-prone prime time. Shortly after, registrations were deactivated, according to a message in the thread. The raffle stopped being a promise and became an episode with technical incidents, paperwork and expectation.
What data was requested to participate in the raffle?
Name and surname, address, DNI, phone, email and Instagram were requested. The person responsible for safeguarding that information was the raffle organizer himself, according to the warnings circulated with the form. There is the sensitive point: handing over your DNI, address and phone to a personal structure, not to an administration with audited security protocols.
The precedent cited as a mirror does not help. A resolution by the Spanish Data Protection Agency dated May 7 concluded that a political propaganda shop had exposed its customers' personal data, omitted what it would use them for and hidden who managed the website, with two very serious infractions and one serious one. A warning for navigators about what can go wrong when the channel of a political cause also becomes a database.
Is it impossible to donate a public salary? The 50% split that didn't happen
According to information published by Vozpópuli, sources close to the MEP would have assured that he tried to force two running mates to donate 50% of their salary each, so that the promised 100% would be completed without his own pay being affected. Both would have refused. The version has not been officially confirmed and should be treated as what it is: an account from interested sources, without independent verification.
If that account were true, the problem would not be impossibility, but sharing the effort. The promise was personal and the cost was intended to be collective. It is the difference between donating a salary and getting others to donate it.
An MEP who doesn't set foot in the European Parliament
To the salary controversy was added another: the claim, maintained in the thread, that he does not plan to attend the European Parliament even one day. There the reproach becomes legal. Collecting public pay and not exercising the mandate opens the door to discussion about embezzlement, according to the readings that were circulated. The criticism is direct: if someone has ideals, whatever they may be, they defend them in the seat; the opposite is keeping the allowance without anything in return.
The rest of the argument rests on a calculation of opportunity rather than legality. A European seat without daily presence serves equally to record videos, publish reels and occupy minutes of television. The product is not legislative, it is audiovisual.
What remains of the promise
What is verifiable as of the date of this discussion is this: a salary of €12,130.87 received, a donation promise cancelled, a raffle announced as irreversible, later held with technical incidents and, in between, a large-scale collection of personal data. Promises are measured by the result, not by the video that explains them.
An uncomfortable question remains, and it is not for the politician: if a raffle with DNI, phone and address as the entry currency is replicated in every campaign, who audits the use of that data and with what penalty is it answered when the circuit fails?
Alvise Pérez is paid €12,130.87 in a single month and immediately announces he cannot donate his salary. The paradox is not a slip: it is the finale of a sequence in which Alvise Pérez, the lead candidate for SALF, promised to raffle his public pay and ended up announcing he would keep it "in response to all the attacks received." The definitive twist, however, was not the one he had anticipated: the same media he claimed to fight later published that the giveaway did take place, with technical glitches and an interruption of about twenty minutes. What began as a challenge ended as a communication exercise with more layers than a public budget.
How much does an MEP earn and why the breakdown matters
The payslip he himself published breaks down two items: €8,089.46 as August salary and €4,043.60 as half of July's salary. They add up to €12,130.87. On that basis he built his own tax calculation: if those €10,300 monthly were earned in Spain under Spanish tax rules, about €6,400 would reach his account. The comparison, therefore, was launched by him and not by an opponent. Almost €4,000 difference per month according to that same calculation, which explains why the promise to donate the salary had so much traction among his electorate.
Another figure that was tossed around in the debate is added in the thread: a daily allowance of €350 for travel, compared with the €25 to €40 per day that, according to the examples cited in the thread itself, a company pays a displaced worker. This is a figure mentioned by a participant and not a verified number in the material.
The announcement, the U-turn and the "vox-ing"
The script was as trinc: first, the public promise to hand over the salary; then, a video at 9:30 p.m. explaining that donating it was impossible; finally, the decision to keep it all and cancel the raffle. In the vocabulary that circulated those days, the operation received a nickname: doing a vox-ing, that is, recycling the repertoire of promises attributed to other right-wing parties. The comparison circulated in several messages in the thread.
The central argument—that there is a legal or practical impediment to donating a public salary—did not hold up for long according to the participants. A simple question was enough: what prevents taking the money out of the bank and distributing it. A salary received is private income; its destination depends on whoever receives it. In the thread, no one cited the specific rule that blocked it.
The raffle: 163,781 sign-ups and zero euros given out
The numbers that circulated during the hours of greatest confusion are eloquent. The public counter of the process showed 163,781 people signed up, 0 donations made and 0 euros distributed. To participate, you had to trinc the organizer on Instagram and subscribe to his Telegram channel, as well as provide personal data. Several people reported receiving a notice that sign-ups were temporarily closing, which fueled suspicions about the veracity of the process.
Then came the correction: there was a raffle, managed with blockchain technology according to published reports, and with a notary according to what a participant in the thread maintained. And it came with a breakdown. The live giveaway was interrupted for about twenty minutes due to a system error, which gave the day an air of an accident-prone prime time. Shortly after, registrations were deactivated, according to a message in the thread. The raffle stopped being a promise and became an episode with technical incidents, paperwork and expectation.
What data was requested to participate in the raffle?
Name and surname, address, DNI, phone, email and Instagram were requested. The person responsible for safeguarding that information was the raffle organizer himself, according to the warnings circulated with the form. There is the sensitive point: handing over your DNI, address and phone to a personal structure, not to an administration with audited security protocols.
The precedent cited as a mirror does not help. A resolution by the Spanish Data Protection Agency dated May 7 concluded that a political propaganda shop had exposed its customers' personal data, omitted what it would use them for and hidden who managed the website, with two very serious infractions and one serious one. A warning for navigators about what can go wrong when the channel of a political cause also becomes a database.
Is it impossible to donate a public salary? The 50% split that didn't happen
According to information published by Vozpópuli, sources close to the MEP would have assured that he tried to force two running mates to donate 50% of their salary each, so that the promised 100% would be completed without his own pay being affected. Both would have refused. The version has not been officially confirmed and should be treated as what it is: an account from interested sources, without independent verification.
If that account were true, the problem would not be impossibility, but sharing the effort. The promise was personal and the cost was intended to be collective. It is the difference between donating a salary and getting others to donate it.
An MEP who doesn't set foot in the European Parliament
To the salary controversy was added another: the claim, maintained in the thread, that he does not plan to attend the European Parliament even one day. There the reproach becomes legal. Collecting public pay and not exercising the mandate opens the door to discussion about embezzlement, according to the readings that were circulated. The criticism is direct: if someone has ideals, whatever they may be, they defend them in the seat; the opposite is keeping the allowance without anything in return.
The rest of the argument rests on a calculation of opportunity rather than legality. A European seat without daily presence serves equally to record videos, publish reels and occupy minutes of television. The product is not legislative, it is audiovisual.
What remains of the promise
What is verifiable as of the date of this discussion is this: a salary of €12,130.87 received, a donation promise cancelled, a raffle announced as irreversible, later held with technical incidents and, in between, a large-scale collection of personal data. Promises are measured by the result, not by the video that explains them.
An uncomfortable question remains, and it is not for the politician: if a raffle with DNI, phone and address as the entry currency is replicated in every campaign, who audits the use of that data and with what penalty is it answered when the circuit fails?
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (561 replies).
More summaries
-
Alvise votes for Chat Control: mistake or strategy?
Alvise Pérez voted in favour of Chat Control 1.0 in the European Parliament. Only 314 of 720 MEPs rejected the measure. Mistake or controlled-opposition strategy?
-
Alvise: from anti-politics rhetoric to a seat in the European Parliament
Alvise Pérez arrives at the European Parliament and the immunity attached to the seat is the key question: does it shield him from his pending court cases?
-
Alvise Pérez: A Year On, No Salary Raffle, No Revelations
A year after joining the European Parliament, Alvise Pérez admits he has not raffled his salary or exposed the frauds he promised. His voters remain silent.
-
Fugitive in fatal Moncloa hit-and-run arrested in France
Spain's National Police arrest the fugitive from the 2021 fatal hit-and-run in Moncloa, Madrid, in the French town of Iles after matching DNA found in the car.
-
Cáritas and informal work: the debate over who pays for charity
A testimony about Cáritas and undeclared work reopens the debate in Spain: the shadow economy, welfare benefits and who foots the bill for solidarity.
-
Can Sánchez hold on until October? The bet shaking Spain's economy
A growing bet in economic circles says Pedro Sánchez won't last until October. Concessions to Catalan separatists, the PSOE 'sewer' scandal and a possible state of emergency.