The absence of clear demarcation lines specifying that the in-kind resources and – where these exist – financial means allocated to political groups in parliament are meant to support exclusively the work of the legislature, has also occasionally led to questionable contributions from such groups to parties and candidates before, during or after elections (to co-finance certain events or to repay certain debts). Moreover, the misuse of administrative resources may be widespread even where the law provides for a ban on donations from public institutions and public companies, as well as from institutions and companies with State capital share. In some post-communist countries, the widespread misuse of administrative resources may reflect a persisting lack of distinction between the State and the governing party. This also explains occasional allegations of widespread abuse of the public media and of public facilities in connection with electoral campaigns, even where equal and unbiased coverage of political parties and of (outgoing) candidate parliamentarians by the State-owned media is guaranteed by existing detailed legal provisions. Controversies have also been occasionally triggered at domestic level by situations where the ruling parties manage to attract additional indirect financial resources, for instance by arranging for public authorities to purchase in the newspapers under their control substantial amounts of advertisement space (or by making fictitious contracts with a similar purpose).