Can an Israeli minister film campaign videos in their office?
The short answer: it depends when. Until 16 July 2026 — no. A minister's office is public property, and section 2A of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law, 5719-1959 prohibits the use of public assets in connection with election propaganda. Since then, the Knesset has carved "filming per se" in the office out of the prohibition by statute, while the use of other public resources for campaigning remains prohibited. This page sets out the rule, the three decisions, the amendment and the original documents — written by the petitioner in those proceedings.
Since 16 July 2026, filming per se in a minister's office is permitted; using other public resources for campaigning is still prohibited. A minister's office in a government ministry is public property, and section 2A of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law, 5719-1959 prohibits using public assets for election propaganda. Under the rule of TB"K 5/26 (2024), applied in TB"K 28-31, 33/26 (31 May 2026), campaign videos could not be filmed there until Amendment 42 excepted filming per se.
The Knesset amended the statute: "filming per se" in a minister's office was carved out of the prohibition
On 16 July 2026 the Knesset passed the Elections to the Twenty-Sixth Knesset (Special Provisions and Legislative Amendments) Law, 5786-2026 (חוק הבחירות לכנסת העשרים ושש (הוראות מיוחדות ותיקוני חקיקה), התשפ״ו–2026; Sefer HaChukim 3546, p. 762). Section 8(2) of that law added to section 2A(2) of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law — the exception for assets placed at the disposal of a minister, deputy minister, Member of Knesset or head of a local authority — the words "including filming per se, in the office of any of them" (Amendment 42; a parallel amendment was made to section 28KH3(a)(2) of the Parties Law (סעיף 28כה3(א)(2) לחוק המפלגות) in respect of primaries).
What this means in practice. From the date the law was published (there being no separate commencement provision for this section), filming per se in a minister's office is no longer treated as prohibited use of public assets. The Constitution Committee's legal advisers made clear during the debates that the words "per se" confine the permission to filming alone — "it does not permit the use of an additional asset" — and the Elections Committee's representative made clear that until the legislation passed the prohibition remained in force. What therefore stands unchanged is: the prohibition on using additional public resources for campaign purposes (office staff, ministry equipment and official accounts, the state emblem); the rule that a government ministry's official account may not re-publish the minister's political content (TB"K 20/26); and the test under which a video is election propaganda even without an explicit call to vote. The decisions themselves remain in force as to the publications they addressed.
Primary sources: the text of the law as published in Sefer HaChukim 3546 (PDF, Knesset) · the bill and its explanatory notes, Knesset Bills 1209 (PDF) · Constitution Committee protocol no. 923, 29 June 2026 (presentation of the carve-out language) · Constitution Committee protocol no. 944, 13 July 2026 · the bill's page on the Knesset website
What the statute says
Section 2A of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law, 5719-1959, prohibits the use of public assets in connection with election propaganda. Two questions sat at the centre of these proceedings. First, is a minister's office — together with the ministry insignia it contains — a "public asset" for the purposes of the prohibition? Second, is a video in which a minister sets out their positions and their achievements "election propaganda" even without an explicit call to vote? The answer given to both was yes.
And since 16 July 2026: section 2A(2), which excepts "assets placed by the State at the disposal of a minister, deputy minister or Member of Knesset", now expressly includes "filming per se, in the office of any of them" (Amendment 42 to the Modes of Propaganda Law, enacted by section 8(2) of the Elections to the Twenty-Sixth Knesset (Special Provisions and Legislative Amendments) Law, 5786-2026). The general prohibition in section 2A on using public assets in connection with propaganda was not changed, and paragraph (2) itself provides that it does not derogate from restrictions on the use of such assets imposed under any law or ethics rules.
"On the contrary, it is desirable that a minister — and every elected official — should tell the electorate what their positions and their deeds are. But the legislature laid down a prohibition on the use of public assets in connection with election propaganda. What is at stake is a restriction on the place where the expression is filmed, not on its content. Those same expressions may be spoken — and filmed — somewhere that is not a public asset."Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of the Central Elections Committee
The three decisions that drew the line
A government ministry may not re-share Hebrew-language content from the minister's political account
Thirty-four publications that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs re-shared, on its official accounts, from the foreign minister's personal political accounts — and the rule that followed: a ministry's official account is a public resource, and it may not be placed at the service of political messaging. The order was framed in terms of Hebrew-language content, and costs were awarded to the petitioner.
The decision that applied the rule: a minister's office is public property
Five ministers filmed videos in their offices for their personal TikTok accounts. Held: a minister's office is a public asset, election propaganda may not be filmed there, and no explicit call to vote is required for a video to count as election propaganda. Four petitions were granted.
Nine ministers — and the distinction between a minister's office and a Member of Knesset's office
The broadest decision in the series, and the one that held that an office in the Knesset building is not public property for the purposes of section 2A — unlike a minister's office in a government ministry, and the ground on which the petitions about videos filmed there were dismissed. This is where the precise boundary of the rule was drawn.
Why this matters to a comparative reader
Israel polices incumbency advantage during a campaign not through a standing regulator but through a single judge: a serving Supreme Court justice chairs the Central Elections Committee for each Knesset election, hears propaganda petitions, and can order publications taken down within days. The remedy is fast, standing is light enough that a private citizen may petition in person, and costs may be awarded to a successful petitioner. That combination is what allowed one lawyer, acting for himself, to bring these petitions against serving ministers.
What happened next is the second point of interest. The rule was then overtaken by legislation. Within seven weeks of the principal decision, the Knesset, drafting a special statute for its own election, wrote a targeted exception into the very subsection the decisions had construed. The judicial reading of "public asset" stood; the legislature narrowed what the term now catches.
The practical position today
- Ministers, deputy ministers and their offices: filming per se in the office is now permitted. Bringing other public resources to bear on the campaign — office staff, ministry equipment, official ministry accounts, the state emblem — is not.
- Communications advisers and political digital teams: the restriction was always on the place, never on the message.
- Official government accounts: re-sharing the minister's political content remains prohibited (TB"K 20/26). The amendment did not touch this.
- The propaganda test: a publication is election propaganda if its dominant purpose is to influence voters — no explicit call to vote is required.
- Enforcement: a petition to the chairman of the Central Elections Committee; removal orders under section 17B and an award of costs. As long as the video remains available to voters, the passage of time since publication does not, by itself, bar the petition.
Frequently asked questions
Can an Israeli minister film election propaganda in their office?
It depends when. In TB"K 28-31, 33/26 (31 May 2026), on petitions brought by Yaron Meiri, Adv. & CPA, the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Justice Noam Sohlberg, held that a minister's office is public property under section 2A of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law, 5719-1959, so election propaganda could not be filmed there. On 16 July 2026 the Knesset carved “filming per se” out of that prohibition (Amendment 42). Filming per se in the office is therefore now permitted; using other public resources for campaigning — office staff, ministry equipment and official accounts, the state emblem — remains prohibited, as do the rest of the rules laid down in the decisions.
What did the July 2026 amendment change?
It added to section 2A(2) of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law the words “including filming per se, in the office of any of them” — Amendment 42, enacted by section 8(2) of the Elections to the Twenty-Sixth Knesset (Special Provisions and Legislative Amendments) Law, 5786-2026 (Sefer HaChukim 3546). Filming per se in the office of a minister, deputy minister, Member of Knesset or head of a local authority is no longer treated as prohibited use of public assets. Using additional public resources for campaign purposes remains prohibited.
Is a minister's office public property for the purposes of the propaganda prohibition?
Yes. TB"K 28-31, 33/26 held, relying on TB"K 5/26 Ben Meir v. Ben Gvir, that a minister's office is public property for the purposes of section 2A of the Elections (Modes of Propaganda) Law. The argument that the office falls within the exception for assets placed at a minister's disposal was rejected, as was the argument that the prohibition would impair a minister's ability to perform their duties.
Does the same apply to a Member of Knesset's office inside the Knesset building?
Not necessarily. TB"K 50-52, 54-59/26 (16 June 2026) held that an office in the Knesset building is not public property for the purposes of section 2A — unlike a minister's office in a government ministry — and that was the ground on which the petitions about videos filmed there were dismissed. That is the central distinction the broadest decision in the series added to the law.
Does a video need an explicit call to vote in order to count as election propaganda?
No. TB"K 28-31, 33/26 held that an explicit call to vote one way or another is not required for a publication to be election propaganda: when a minister presents their positions and their achievements, the voter understands what the result at the ballot box is meant to be. It is enough that the publication is intended to influence voters.
May a government ministry's official account share the minister's political content?
As a rule, no. In TB"K 20/26 (15 May 2026) the Foreign Ministry's undertaking not to re-share, on its official accounts, Hebrew posts from the minister's personal political account was given the force of a decision; a narrow exception was allowed for English posts whose dominant purpose is advancing Israel's foreign policy, and a post whose main purpose is election propaganda may not be shared on an official account in any language. A ministry's official account is a public resource, and placing it at the service of political messaging is prohibited.
What is the sanction for using an office for election propaganda, and who enforces it?
Enforcement is by petition to the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, who may issue injunctions and removal orders under section 17B of the law and award costs. In TB"K 28-31, 33/26 four ministers were ordered to take the videos down, and costs were awarded against the ministers and the Likud party. As long as a video remains available to the public, an order may be issued against the continuation of the violation — even months after publication.
Are the Israeli flag or the title “Minister” public assets?
No — it was held that use of the title “Minister” and use of the national flag are not use of public assets. The state emblem, by contrast, is public property.
Primary sources and press coverage
- TB"K 20/26 — the full decision (PDF, 15 May 2026, Hebrew)
- TB"K 28-31, 33/26 — the full decision (PDF, 31 May 2026, Hebrew)
- TB"K 50-52, 54-59/26 — the full decision (PDF, 16 June 2026, Hebrew)
- Elections to the Twenty-Sixth Knesset (Special Provisions and Legislative Amendments) Law, 5786-2026 — Sefer HaChukim 3546 (PDF, Knesset)
- The bill and explanatory notes — Knesset Bills 1209 (PDF)
- Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, protocol no. 923, 29 June 2026
- Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, protocol no. 944, 13 July 2026
- The bill's page on the Knesset website
- Kikar HaShabat — "Justice Sohlberg against Likud: a ban on propaganda" (Hebrew)
- News1 — "A government office is not a propaganda studio" (Hebrew)
- Israel Hayom — the decision on the Foreign Ministry resharing the foreign minister's posts (Hebrew)
- The Seventh Eye — coverage of the petitions (Hebrew)
- Shakuf — "a systematic and wide-ranging election propaganda campaign" (Hebrew)
- N12, Prof. Yaniv Roznai — "A minister's office is not a propaganda studio" (Hebrew)
- Haaretz — the scale of petitions to the Elections Committee for the 26th Knesset (20 August 2026, Hebrew)
Checked against the current statutory text in September 2026. The governing text of every Israeli statute cited here is the Hebrew original.
Leave your details for a first call
Your name and a phone number are enough. I will get back to you during office hours. You can also write directly on WhatsApp.
I will get back to you during office hours. Until then there is no need to send documents — keep the documents related to the matter with you. If there is a close deadline, write to me on WhatsApp or call +972-50-431-3155.
Prefer to talk? +972-50-431-3155 · WhatsApp
This page summarises public decisions of the chairman of the Central Elections Committee for the 26th Knesset, and was written by the petitioner in those proceedings. The summary is no substitute for reading the full decisions, which are published in Hebrew. Nothing here is legal advice, and past results do not guarantee similar results in the future.
A question about Israeli election propaganda law, elections or public law?
A first call to review your matter.