Many MPs including Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) and Andrew Percy (Goole) attacked the govt for using public money to put across an argument, in the form of a leaflet sent to each household, setting out the benefits of EU membership. Adams wanted his constituents to use it as toilet paper (HERE) while Andrew Percy said he used it to light the fire (HERE). It included what many people would see as simple statements of fact. There is nothing in it that anyone could possibly disagree with as far as I can see. An easy read copy is HERE
Nigel Adams said, "but the spending of taxpayers’ money on this propaganda is clearly unfair". But he was not so bothered about using the same public money in the form of his website to set out his own laughably partisan views most of which were highly misleading when they were not totally untrue. This is an example HERE
MPs scheme of allowable business costs and expenses (eighth edition 2016-17) sets out what they can claim for and it says (item 6.6 page 27) that Office Costs Expenditure may only be claimed for the performance of parliamentary functions and excludes alcoholic drinks, stationery provided by the House of Commons, newsletters, funding any material, but excluding a website, that contains a party political logo or emblem, etc
So their websites are excluded from the exclusions and are therefore an allowable expense which you and I pay for. Both Nigel Adams and Julian Sturdy (HERE) put out totally biased statements containing schoolboy errors on their websites which I assume went out to the press and other subscribers. Looks like double standards to me.
