CEC case 28-31, 33/26
A minister's office is a public resource, and propaganda may not be filmed there
Decision of the Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee of 31 May 2026 concerning five Likud ministers: Kisch, Zohar, Regev, Levin and Amsalem. The decision that applied the rule, and that was covered by the media on the day it was given.
Translated: · Hebrew version updated:
In one line
The decision that applied the rule: a minister's office is a public resource, so election propaganda (campaign material) may not be filmed there. Four Likud ministers were ordered to remove TikTok videos, and in all five petitions costs were awarded against the ministers and the Likud.
| Case numbers | CEC case (תב״כ) 28/26, 29/26, 30/26, 31/26, 33/26 — Meiri v. Kisch et al. |
|---|---|
| Decision | 31 May 2026 |
| Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee | Justice Noam Sohlberg, Deputy President of the Supreme Court |
| Petitioner | Yaron Meiri, Adv. & CPA — in person |
| Respondents | Likud ministers Yoav Kisch (Education), Miki Zohar (Culture and Sport), Miri Regev (Transport), Yariv Levin (Justice) and David Amsalem, together with the Likud party, the relevant ministries and the Attorney General |
| For respondents 1–2 | Adv. Avi Halevi |
| For the other respondents | Adv. Yonatan Berman |
| Date filed | 30 April 2026 |
| Outcome | Four petitions granted · one became moot · costs awarded |
The facts
The petitions claimed that the ministers filmed videos in their official offices whose content amounts to election propaganda, and posted them on their personal TikTok accounts. The public resources allegedly used: the office, the ministry's official emblems, the flag of Israel and the title of minister.
| Proceeding | Minister | Videos | Posting dates |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEC case 28/26 | Yoav Kisch, Minister of Education | 1 | 24 Aug 2025 |
| CEC case 29/26 | Miki Zohar, Minister of Culture and Sport | 1 | 29 Dec 2025 |
| CEC case 30/26 | Miri Regev, Minister of Transport | 4 | 27 Nov 2025 · 17 Dec 2025 · 18 Jan 2026 · 18 Feb 2026 |
| CEC case 31/26 | Yariv Levin, Minister of Justice | 6 | 1, 3 and 30 Sep 2025 · 29 Oct 2025 · 20 Nov 2025 · 23 Dec 2025 |
| CEC case 33/26 | David Amsalem | 2 | 29 Jun 2025 · 17 Dec 2025 — removed before the hearing |
The respondents' answers
The ministers and the Likud argued that the public standing of an elected official is not a public resource; that filming in the office is not a use of public resources; and that the videos express worldviews on issues on the public agenda, which is expression protected by political freedom of expression, with no explicit call to vote. Minister Levin added that the opposite finding would harm the ability of elected officials to discuss matters with the public, certainly where the Minister of Justice is concerned.
The government ministries and the Attorney General, on the other hand, stated that filming in a minister's office counts as a use of public resources, and that the content of the videos and where they were posted point to election propaganda.
The ruling
What is and what is not a public resource
It was held, with the respondents' agreement, that using the title "minister" is not a use of public resources. It was also noted, relying on CEC case 12/23, that the state flag is not a public resource for the purposes of section 2A, and, relying on CEC case 28/22, that the state emblem is a public resource.
The main discussion concerned the offices. No minister denied that the videos were filmed in their office. Relying on CEC case 5/26 Ben Meir v. Ben Gvir (as quoted in CEC case 28-31, 33/26 and in CEC case 50-59/26), it was held that a minister's office is a public resource, so election propaganda may not be filmed there. The argument that the office falls within the exception of "assets that the State has placed at a minister's disposal" was rejected, and so was the argument that such a prohibition would harm the minister's ability to perform the role.
The content of the videos
The decision reviewed the videos one by one: statements on education and Judaism, public criticism, transport policy and the ministry's achievements, and criticism of the legal system and of the Attorney General. What they have in common: the minister presents a position, describes achievements and expresses an intention to act.
"Both in presenting their positions and in presenting their achievements in the past, the present or the future, the ministers seek to get the public to support them, and when election day comes, to vote for them and for their list... An explicit call to vote one way or another is not necessary for there to be election propaganda. The voter sees clearly, and understands what the result at the ballot box is meant to be following each video."CEC case 28-31, 33/26, para. 8 (unofficial translation)
The delay (laches) argument: rejected
The petitions were filed on 30 April 2026, and the earliest video was posted on 24 August 2025, about eight months earlier. It was held that as long as the videos are available and voters may come across them, an order may be given against the "continuation" of the offense under section 17B(a) of the Law, and that the time that had passed does not justify dismissal on this ground alone.
What was not granted
The petitioner also asked for a general order about future posts and an order requiring the Likud to supervise its elected officials. Both remedies were refused, as being "a general instruction to comply with the law, and that goes without saying".
Costs
| Proceeding | Outcome | Costs to the petitioner |
|---|---|---|
| CEC case 28/26 — Kisch | Granted | ₪2,500 |
| CEC case 29/26 — Zohar | Granted | ₪2,500 |
| CEC case 30/26 — Regev | Granted | ₪9,000 |
| CEC case 31/26 — Levin | Granted | ₪11,000 |
| CEC case 33/26 — Amsalem | Moot and struck out | ₪2,000 |
In setting the costs, the factors weighed included the similarity of the petitions in substance, so that writing them did not require the same effort each time, together with the number of videos in each petition and their posting dates.
This page summarizes a public decision of the Chairperson of the Central Elections Committee for the 26th Knesset. The summary was prepared by our office and is not a substitute for reading the full decision. Nothing here is legal advice, and results achieved in the past are no promise of a similar result in the future.
A question on election propaganda law, or on a petition to the CEC Chairperson?
A first call to look at your case.