Ayuso’s 27m Madrid ad spend: Jiménez Losantos gets 450k

Ayuso’s 27m: Losantos, 450,000 euros per thread

Governments don’t buy newspapers; they buy silence, or at least sympathy. The figure opening this issue — 27 million euros in institutional advertising and propaganda by the Madrid regional government, according to the message sparking debate — is large enough that the breakdown matters more than the headline. And the breakdown, medium by medium, distributes far more than the scandal suggests.

Before the nuance, the starting point. The administration of Isabel Díaz Ayuso allocates, according to the figures circulating in the thread, tens of millions annually to institutional advertising contracts with private media. Among beneficiaries are large and small groups, radio stations, travel websites, and niche publications. The complete distribution — with names and amounts — turns a round figure into a map of favors.

How much does each Madrid regional government media outlet earn?

The figures circulating paint a wide and unequal distribution. Prisa Group takes the bulk: about 600,000 euros for El País and another 600,000 for Cadena SER. The 40 Principales radio network totals 208,000, As newspaper 41,000, Huffington Post 13,000, and even a minor cultural publication gets 3,000. At the other end, travel websites like eDreams (90,000) or atrapalo.com (55,000) charge for spaces that, at first glance, have little to do with informing about anything institutional.

• El País and Cadena SER: 600,000 euros each
• Es Radio: 243,000 euros; Libertad Digital: 213,000 euros
• 40 Principales: 208,000 euros; Radio Intereconomía: 88,000 euros
• eDreams: 90,000 euros; atrapalo.com: 55,000 euros
• As: 41,000 euros; Huffington Post: 13,000 euros; Jotdown: 3,000 euros

What justifies 55,000 euros to an online travel agency? The official reason is ‘institutional advertising.’ The unofficial one is that money is distributed among affiliates regardless of the medium.

Federico Jiménez Losantos: the 450,000 euros attributed to him

The name at the center of the controversy is Federico Jiménez Losantos. According to the circulating figures, the journalist reportedly earns 450,000 euros in public funds, split between 243,000 from Es Radio and 213,000 from Libertad Digital. The paradox reproached to him — claiming to be liberal and criticizing state dependence while receiving money from it — has become the core of the issue.

Two clarifications before raising the torches. It is not a direct subsidy, but payment for advertising space. And these 450,000 euros are approximately one-third of what Prisa Group receives, debunking the idea that only ideologically aligned circles are fed here.

How much does the central government spend on institutional advertising?

Here the scandal becomes uncomfortable for everyone. According to sources cited in the thread, central executive spending on institutional advertising soars to 554 million euros, nearly double that under Rajoy, and the largest space-buying contract in the country’s history has been announced: 400 million tax-free, extendable for another two years. Some argue, moreover, that left-wing media earn as much or more than right-wing ones.

The ‘you too’ argument has an autonomous version. Transparency data from the Principality of Asturias shows tens of millions accumulated between 2018 and 2021 in advertising and cultural promotion, including for the Bable language, while doctors are lacking. It is not an alibi: it is proof that the problem is systemic and not of a single tonalidad.

Is it legal for administrations to pay private media?

Yes, and that is the crux. Participants agree that institutional advertising is legal, although they criticize its distribution for lacking clear criteria. Hence, one strand of analysis calls for banning institutional ads on private media.

On the opposite side, it is remembered that Javier Milei abolished institutional advertising in Argentina and was criticized by some of the same voices now pointing at Ayuso. Coherence, at best.

Public money as a tool of influence

There is an uncomfortable consensus running through the entire issue: the problem is not who does it, but that it is legal to do so. A part of the analysis argues that PP administrations build authentic media nurseries for their narrative.

What no one disputes is the volume. Between regions, municipalities, and the central government, public money flows to media in torrents and without clear criteria.

With these threads, it is foreseeable that the controversy will fade without regulatory changes: as long as the law permits it, each administration will continue using the checkbook as an influence tool. If anyone expects a law banning institutional ads on private media, better not hold their breath.