A petition against the mayor of Lod and the municipality, claiming that an elected official is prohibited from serving as a "presenter" for the municipality, was rejected: The chairwoman of the Elections Committee accepted the argument of Mayor Yair Revivo that the video is intended for potential investors from outside the city.

The decision addresses a petition filed by the "Lawyers for the Promotion of Good Governance" association against the Lod Municipality, the Economic Corporation for Lod, and Mayor Revivo. The petition focused on a promotional video to promote the city, in which Revivo appeared and spoke about the development momentum in Lod. According to the association, the very appearance of the mayor in a public video constitutes an prohibited use of public resources for election propaganda purposes.

According to the association, the video violates section (2a) of the Elections Law, which prohibits the use of public assets for election propaganda, and the mayor actually served as a "presenter" for the municipality. In doing so, he benefited from public exposure that promotes him personally ahead of the elections. According to the association, it relied on rulings by the chairpersons of the Central Elections Committee, according to which an elected official is not permitted to participate in public authority broadcasts, except in exceptional cases only where their participation is essential and appropriate legal approval has been obtained.

The municipality and the mayor, represented by Atty. Roi Genot from the law firm of Ofer Shapir & Co., argued that the purpose of the video is not the political promotion of the mayor but rather the marketing of the city of Lod to potential investors and residents. According to them, Revivo's participation was intended to give the video a human and credible dimension – not to glorify his personal achievements.

The chairwoman of the Regional Elections Committee, Judge Chana Knizhnik, ruled that as a matter of principle there is indeed a difficulty in the mayor appearing in the video. When the mayor appears by name and in his role and speaks about actions that the municipality performs, the achievements can be attributed to him, and therefore a connection to election propaganda exists. The committee emphasized that even if the primary target audience is the public outside of Lod, the video may affect both the residents of the city and future residents, who would be able to vote in the elections.

However, the committee ruled that in this case the exception to the rule applies. The Economic Corporation presented an affidavit stating that the decision to integrate the mayor was made following a professional recommendation from an external company, with the aim of increasing the campaign's effectiveness. The petition was rejected and the petitioner was ordered to pay the respondents expenses in the amount of NIS 7,500.