Lidia Bedman invoiced 63,000 euros to Intereconomía in 2019

Abascal’s vvife invoiced 63,000 euros to Intereconomía

Lidia Bedman, vvife of Santiago Abascal, invoiced 63,000 euros annually to the Intereconomía group in 2019, according to information that brought the issue to light. The figure itself is not illegal. What makes it political ammunition is the circuit: Intereconomía is a media group close to Vox, which in turn receives significant funding from the party itself. The leader’s vvife invoices the company; the company is paid by the party he leads. They cook it and they eat it, summarizes the suspicion.

A closed loop: Vox hires Intereconomía, which pays Bedman

The sequence is straightforward. Vox contracts services with Intereconomía. Intereconomía, in turn, pays the party president’s vvife for a series of professional services. None of the pieces are, in principle, illegal: a private company can hire anyone and pay what is agreed.

The problem arises when looking at the whole picture. Money leaves the party’s coffers, enters an affiliated media group, and a portion ends up in the leader’s family’s pocket. No crime is needed for the image to be politically toxic: a party that makes regeneration its banner indirectly supports its leader’s vvife’s salary.

Is it legal that Abascal’s vvife invoices Intereconomía?

Legal, yes. Clean is another matter. This is the conclusion repeated in almost all analyses, even the most critical. The legal argument is that this is a commercial relationship between private individuals and a private company: there is no public money, no administrative contracting, and no indictment or judicial resolution as of the date of this discussion.

Against that, the ethical reproach is hard to dodge. It is argued that the contract is explained not by the contractor’s talent, but by her marital surname, and that this is cronyism in all its forms, even if it is legal cronyism. The defense from those who see nothing serious here is direct: if the work was done, charging for it is normal.

Public money or private money: the objection that lowers the reproach

The detail that orders much of the case is where the money comes from. When the questioned salary is paid with public funds, the condemnation is immediate and unanimous. Here the payer is a private company, and this nuance lowers the penal reproach but does not dissolve the political one.

Some compare the two scenarios and conclude they are not equivalent: in one case the victim is the taxpayer, in the other the shareholder or advertiser. The counter-argument is that the ultimate origin of the money also matters: if the paying group lives from the party’s advertising and contracts, the militant taxpayer ends up financing the operation.

Why hire an influencer and not an agency?

Here the case becomes more slippery. The contractor is a figure with a social media presence, 240,000 trinc on Instagram according to the data managed in the thread, who publishes fashion, travel, and domestic life content and is linked to a clothing store with the family surname in the name.

The contrast used to measure her commercial value is that of Carmen Lomana, with 592,000 trinc according to the same count: approximately double the audience. Those defending the contract argue that this is the market and that a company pays for reach. Those criticizing respond that Lomana is signed by perfume or fashion firms, not a media group, and that the service attributed to Bedman does not correspond to a mid-level executive salary. The criticism goes further: for a party that presents itself as the scourge of waste, this image is hard to sell.

From the invoice to the Disenso Foundation

A portion of those trinc the issue considers that the 63,000 euros are the tip of the iceberg. The focus, they argue, lies with the Disenso Foundation, created from Vox, to which several million euros from party funds were allegedly diverted, with Abascal appearing as president for life. These are claims launched without public documentation to support them in the available material, but they mark where the reproach goes when the invoice ceases to be the news.

It is worth adding a warning: on the margins of the case circulate also conspiracy theories about supposed foreign loyalties of the Vox leader that have no proof and muddy any serious analysis of the economic issue.

What Vox plays with this issue

The case brings together all the ingredients of slow erosion: concrete figures, a direct family link, and a party whose narrative relies on exemplary conduct. It also brings together all the ingredients of a case that fades: without public money, without indictment, and without known judicial resolution, it is difficult to sustain over time.

If the issue remains the invoice and the contractor’s name, it is most likely to dilute between noise and refutations. If someone audits the foundation’s accounts and movements do not add up, the story changes size and protagonist. Today, the only verifiable thing is the small: 63,000 euros and a circuit that, while not a crime, is hardly an example of transparency.