Between 2007 and 2010 the Ministry of Communication (SCP, for its acronym in Spanish) spent $2,326,274,046.18 in government advertising "without any planning," i.e., "without defining the objectives, goals, money, and physical resources to achieve them." The report, approved in February of this year, notes that in the years when there were elections (2007 and 2009), "there was an increase in the investment for the month of the campaign events."

When the AGN notified the Secretariat on this situation, the agency said that "in the analysis many factors should be considered." For example, that "in winter times health prevention campaigns are conducted and, in summer, dengue campaigns". In fact, they justified that "in the winter of 2009 –legislative election time- Influenza A made an appearance”. However, the AGN detected that the expenses on government advertising from the Ministry of Health in June of that year was only 8%, while for promulgation of the Federal Administration of Public Revenues during that period spent 71% of the budget.

In October 2007, an increase of money for ads was announced, rising $9 million compared to the monthly average, while in 2009 the increase over the average was of $98 million.

For this year, which is also an election year, as reported by The Auditor.info a few months ago, promoting acts of government will have a decrease of 17% less than they had up to November 2012. However, last year all communication initiatives increased their items up to 69%, as was the case of “Football for Everyone”. It should be noted that the AGN investigated the Official advertising campaign periods at the request of the Joint Parliamentary Committee for Reviewing Accounts.

More Than 2 Billion with No Criteria

The SCP "does not check the proper performance of the contracted services" in regard to government advertising. This means that "after the creative, art, and procurement of goods phase there is now way of knowing if the campaigns are actually carried out effectively”. In their defense, the agency informed the AGN that "Telam is responsible for recruitment and advertising publication." Who owns Telam? Surprisingly, or not, the audit said "it is a government corporation whose sole shareholder is the same Ministry of Communication."

Therefore, in relation to expenditures, the watchdog said that "the rules that preside over official advertising is not enough" because the "general principles, parameters, and methodologies to follow" are not specified. This can dull the necessary transparency in the distribution and procurement of government advertising.

In line with the lack of planning in the distribution of advertising, in March 2011, the Supreme Court of Justice intervened in the claim of Editorial Perfil by the distribution of government advertising, noting that "the State cannot allocate advertising resources arbitrarily based on unreasonable criteria.”

Distribution In The Media

The distribution of government advertising in the media is a controversial topic and continually blazing. In this regard, the AGN said that out of "356 graphic mediums, just 5 receive 59.52% of the investment" that amount in 2009 totaled nearly $234 million.

Grupo Clarín is the medium which received the most money for government publicity; they received during that period more than $45 million, that’s because both La Razon and Clarin are parts of the same company.
In the details of the investment, AGN detected that "we can’t know the date in which the money was used and in most cases the medium in which they were published or where the specific campaigns were issued, which doesn’t allow us to know the actual distribution or allocation of the publicity.”

Small Mishaps

It’s no minor detail the fact that the agency responsible for supervising the national public sector "was unable to perform its work at the headquarters of the Ministry of Communication" that means, that they was unable to carry out their tasks within the audited body, which "prevented an examination of the circuits."

Seeing these observations, it is worth mentioning that the field work was done between May 2010 and June 2011 and the report wasn’t approved until February 2013.