(cont. from § 9) Increased transparency in political processes (cont. KU39)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! It was refreshing to have an hour of voting after seven hours in the chamber! Now we return to performing our democratic duty in the speaker's chair.

A little over a year ago, I was in Moldova together with a delegation from the Riksdag. Our visit was aimed at studying how Swedish aid contributes to strengthening resilience against influence attempts from a foreign power, specifically Russia.

One had in fresh memory a presidential election where one had succeeded in linking Russian financing to a Moldovan presidential candidate's election campaign. Through several different paths, one succeeded in tracing how money had been funneled, in vain attempts to erase the tracks, and through several steps, the tracks led all the way into Russia. The corrupt politician was forced to resign, and I want to remember that he moved – to Russia.

During our visit a year ago, we studied how the UN Development Programme UNDP, with Swedish support, strengthened the country's institutions and thereby increased resilience against similar influence attempts ahead of the then upcoming parliamentary election. Fortunately, it turned out well.

Moldova is not the only example; unfortunately, there are several later examples of countries where hostile foreign forces attempt to manipulate the electorate with disinformation, smear campaigns, and other means to destabilize and undermine trust in the political parties, the representatives, and the entire political system.

This points to why even we in Sweden need to look at our house. That is why it is very important that we now get legislation in place that prohibits parties, their affiliated organizations, members and substitutes for members, and election candidates for parties from receiving anonymous and foreign contributions, regardless of the amount. The exception is smaller contributions intended to cover expenses in connection with international party-political cooperation and contributions from EU institutions.

The parties shall be required to report which funds have entered the operation and from where the funds originate. The scrutiny shall be tightened regarding how the regulatory framework is followed. Furthermore, influence actors, so-called lobbyists, shall register with Kammarkollegiet and report information on their communication with certain political decision-makers. The supervisory authority shall be Kammarkollegiet.

Another part of the bill that we are discussing today concerns the labor market organizations' contributions for party-political purposes. Unfortunately, thousands, not to say tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands, of workers with bourgeois sympathies have been more or less forced into joining the Workers' Party Social Democrats. Yes, not in such a way that they have received membership cards in the party, but whether they have been aware of it or not, they have been involved and, with their membership fees, financed the Social Democrats' party coffers and election fund. That is how it has been for decades.

The law we are now to decide on means that an individual member in an organization in the labor market that makes contributions for party-political purposes shall have the right to issue a declaration that their membership fee may not be used for such contributions. The declaration shall be binding for the organization, and the organization shall inform its members about the right to issue such a declaration.

Personally, I would have preferred to see the law enter into force with immediate effect, before the autumn election, but unfortunately, it will not be until the mid-year change in 2027. I nevertheless move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of the motions.

Madam Speaker! I am truly at my last speech from the Riksdag's rostrum before I resign, and therefore, before I leave it, I would like to thank the Chamber Office, the Speaker, and the entire operation for all the good support and the good service that I have received during the total seven and a half years that I will have served as a Member of Parliament in the Chamber.

In addition to the usual sessions in the chamber, I have also during these two parliamentary terms participated in several groups led by the deputy speakers, such as the equality committee during the previous parliamentary term, the steering group for democracy development in the eastern partnership area, and the working group that has developed programs for the Riksdag's research days.

I also want to thank my colleagues in the Committee on the Constitution and the committee's absolutely fantastic secretariat. It is such a privilege to have access to the vast knowledge and the institutional memory that exists in the secretariat and to be able to lean on it in the sometimes quite tricky review work.

Warm thanks, everyone, and all the best for the summer and the time thereafter! Personally, I am withdrawing to the municipal and regional democratic level and look forward to being able to sleep a few more nights in my own bed at home in Vimmerby – with some trips to Stockholm, for example, during the veterans' days. Thank you for the floor, and thank you for these years!

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! In September there is an election, and this autumn I hope to avoid seeing revelations like those that TV4's Kalla fakta came out with during the heat of the election campaign the last time it happened.

In the journalistic review published in 2022, five out of eight parliamentary parties – all four Tidö parties and the Social Democrats – actually showed great creativity when it came to bypassing provisions in the Act on Transparency in Party Funding. It is legislation that is intended to give voters the opportunity to know where politicians and political parties get their money from. It is therefore about voters getting to know who actually sponsors whom.

The legislation that was rounded off had been hammered out here in the chamber only a few years earlier, but unfortunately, it turned out not to be particularly robust. It was therefore necessary to strengthen it, something that the Centerpartiet actually said directly after Kalla fakta's revelation. Therefore, it is pleasing that we now get the necessary changes in place.

As has been said previously here in the speaker's chair, the ban on anonymous contributions to political parties is now strengthened. Such contributions are prohibited regardless of how large they are, which is not the case today. Furthermore, contributions from foreign actors are prohibited, which is necessary in the uncertain global situation we live in, where foreign powers in different ways direct influence operations against us in order to weaken us and undermine our democracy.

Madam Speaker! It is both necessary and welcome that voters gain greater insight into political processes. It is fundamentally about safeguarding the trust in those of us who hold political mandates. We all need to earn that trust and, at the same time, give our voters the opportunity to evaluate whether we deserve it. The transparency that is necessary to maintain a vital liberal democracy means that voters should be able to demand that I am open about who contributes financially to me and my party, and also about which contacts I have in my role as a politician.

I just mentioned the economic aspect, i.e., who sponsors whom, but this is not sufficient. Information is also required regarding who is attempting to influence political representatives in other ways so that voters can make informed choices. Centerpartiet has long championed the issue of introducing a so-called lobby register, and it is pleasing that we will now have such a register in place.

Politicians and politicians' close associates have frequent contacts with actors who want to influence political decisions. The regulation that will now be hammered through involves requirements for transparency regarding lobbyists' contacts with political decision-makers and aims to prevent corruption in a broader sense, that is, various forms of improper influence and conflicts of interest. With the new regulation, citizens will more easily be able to obtain information about which contacts politicians have had before important decisions are made. This is necessary, as external actors' contacts with politicians have increased during the last decades and become increasingly important for political decision-making.

Madam Speaker! As a member of the Centre Party, I believe it is obvious that legislative changes that involve restrictions on our fundamental freedoms and rights must be proportionate and precise. Therefore, I believe that the proposal submitted by the government for a new law with provisions on labor market organizations' contributions for party-political purposes should not be implemented. The law entails a requirement for consent from individual members when organizations in the labor market use a portion of the membership fee to financially support a party. Such a legislative change obviously constitutes a restriction on the freedom of association, and as the Council on Legislation has pointed out, it is highly uncertain whether this restriction is compatible with the European Convention. This should concern more than just me.

I want to emphasize that there is already good transparency regarding the contributions that trade unions donate to political parties. Furthermore, it is highly questionable whether the new law achieves the stated purpose, namely to ensure that contributions for party-political purposes issued as a proportion of membership fees shall be voluntary for the members, which Per-Arne Håkansson explained in detail in his statement. The Council on Legislation has questioned this, as well as whether the bill is proportionate, and has found that the proposal should not be used as a basis for legislation.

Madam Speaker! I want to say something about the preparation of this proposal. It is an issue that we in KU have a particular focus on. The parliamentary committee that investigated the issues we are debating here today did not submit any proposal regarding requirements for consent from individual members when it concerns contributions from organizations in the labor market to parties. It did, however, completely in accordance with the directives, submit legislative proposals in this part. During the referral process, the referral bodies were not prompted to comment specifically on that issue, and the committee had stated that there were no grounds to introduce such a law. This led to only a small number of referral bodies commenting on this part of the proposal.

That the preparation was handled in this deficient manner is remarkable. It means, as the Council on Legislation has noted, that the basis for the bill is fragile. I would like, like several others, to move for approval of the reservation contained in the report.

In conclusion, I would like, like Gudrun Brunegård before me, to extend a warm thanks to the KU's secretariat and to my colleagues in the committee, as I too will be leaving the committee and the Riksdag after this parliamentary term. This is my final speech. I would also like to thank the Speaker and the secretariat here.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! A century-old battle has been ongoing regarding the Social Democrats' forms of financing. We still remember the scandal surrounding the Social Democrats' lottery activities. It turned out that the party's lottery company Kombispel used deeply unethical sales methods, not least targeted at elderly people.

The Consumer Agency and the Gambling Authority stated that the Social Democrats had failed in the control of the operations, that the marketing had been improper, that consumer protection had been insufficient, and that the telephone sales had not taken place under reassuring conditions. The Gambling Authority therefore issued a warning and imposed a sanction fee of 3 million kronor.

This eventually led to stricter rules for party lotteries and, as expected, to loud protests from the Socialdemokraterna. They wanted to reject the government's proposition because, in the party's opinion, it was discriminatory and contravened the provisions of the Instrument of Government regarding freedom of association. It is an argument that is reminiscent of those that have historically been used to defend various forms of party financing that have benefited the Socialdemokraterna.

In this context, the Council on Legislation (Lagrådet) stated in December 2024 that the proposal was neither discriminatory nor in conflict with the provisions of the Instrument of Government regarding freedom of association and freedom of enterprise. Furthermore, the party's representatives in a motion on party-political lotteries claimed that the changes "rather call to mind authoritarian regimes than a vibrant democracy." Those were big words to defend a form of financing that the authorities had directed serious criticism against. The Social Democrats have all too often had a tendency to conflate the party's own interests with the fundamental principles of democracy.

Madam Speaker! The same type of arguments were used for decades in defense of the collective affiliation of trade union members to the Social Democrats. It was said that abolishing the collective affiliation would threaten democracy and restrict freedom of association.

Today, instead, there is broad agreement that the system constituted a serious violation of the individual's political freedom. Hundreds of thousands of Swedes became party members without having applied for membership themselves, while significant economic resources were added to the party through membership fees.

When the collective agreement was abolished at the turn of the year 1990/91, the so-called trade union-political cooperation, including through organizational affiliation, continued to provide the Socialdemokraterna with significant organizational and economic advantages. In a report from 2002, written by Johan Forssell and Kristoffer Tamsons, the value of LO's support to the Socialdemokraternas election campaign was estimated at over half a billion kronor, if one included both direct contributions and work efforts from trade union employees and elected representatives. This corresponded to more than five times the combined election budgets for all other political parties in the Riksdag.

Regardless of how one evaluates that figure, it illustrates something important: The Social Democrats' history is also the history of a party that for a long time had access to resources and forms of support that no other party in Sweden was anywhere near.

Already during a parliamentary debate in June 1934, it was stated that Landsorganisationen contributed 250,000 kronor to the Socialdemokraternas election campaign. As a share of the country's GDP, this figure corresponds to approximately half a billion kronor in today's monetary value.

It was during the same debate that the future People's Party leader Gustaf Andersson in Rasjön said that one must "from democratic starting points consider it incorrect that a trade union member shall, by compulsion, more or less, be forced to belong to a political party." In the same way, we think today that it is wrong not to give the individual the opportunity to object to even their own membership fee financing a political party.

Madam Speaker! What we are debating today is ultimately about the Social Democrats' ability to continue to dispose of economic resources from people who are not party members and who are not even given a self-evident right to oppose that their membership fees are used for party-political purposes.

It is understandable that the Social Democrats defend such a system out of self-interest. That a distinctly collectivist party like the Left Party does so is also not particularly surprising. The Green Party's support for this order is also not particularly surprising. What is, however, difficult to understand is that the Centre Party chooses to align itself with this line.

There was a time when Liberals and Center Party members stood side by side in the fight against the Social Democrats' claims to collectively affiliate trade union members with the party in the name of freedom of association. Already in 1965, the Center Party requested through a motion on the protection of citizens' political integrity that the issue should be investigated. The People's Party stood behind this motion. The Social Democrats, on the other hand, opposed that such an investigation should be carried out.

In the debate that took place in May 1965, the Social Democratic Minister for Social Affairs, Gustav Möller, emphasized that the collective connection functions as a backbone for the labor movement, both trade unionally and politically, and that it contributes to giving social democracy a financially stronger backbone.

So that was the case, and in many respects, it still is. The difference is that it is no longer the members who are collectively linked to the party, but their wallets. It is their membership fees that can be used to finance the Social Democrats' political activities without any requirement for individual consent.

Madam Speaker! For a long time, the Centre Party was one of the strongest critics of collective affiliation. The party argued that political membership must be based on a personal and voluntary commitment. The question today is why the same principle should not apply when it comes to financing a political party through membership fees.

In the joint reservation from the Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet, it is asserted as a first argument that it is questionable whether a requirement for consent from individual members is compatible with the Instrument of Government's protection of freedom of association when organizations in the labor market use a portion of the membership fee to support a political party.

It is a strange argument, because the Council on Legislation has on repeated occasions during the last 40 years dismissed precisely this objection. Already in 1985, the Council on Legislation wrote, by reason of a joint motion from Centerpartiet, Folkpartiet and Moderaterna regarding a law prohibiting collective bargaining, that the proposed law did not conflict with the freedom of association protected by the Instrument of Government.

The Council on Legislation's reasoning, which in all material respects is the same as that put forward by the Government in the case at hand, was that constitutional protection applies in the relationship between the individual and the public, not in the relationship between individuals. Rules or prohibitions of a civil law character therefore do not constitute any limitation of the freedom of association within the meaning of the Instrument of Government.

Madam Speaker! What we are proposing is not a revolution. It is not about banning trade union-political cooperation. It is not about banning party contributions. It is only about giving the individual member the right to say no.

Those who do not want their own membership fee to be used to finance a political party should not be forced to do so either. It is a self-evident question of political integrity, personal freedom of choice, and respect for the individual.

It is not about forbidding anyone from giving money to a political party. It is just about that no one should be forced to do so. It should be an indisputable principle in a free democracy. Therefore, I move for approval of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mauricio Rojas, for a long and interesting speech!

It is still positive that Mauricio Rojas is so clear about how the Tidö parties are introducing this legislation. The sole purpose is to target the Social Democrats and some of their funding.

I would have understood it if we still had collective connection, which Mauricio Rojas spoke about for a long time. I also agree that it should be up to each individual who is a member of an organization to choose to share the organization's values and thus the conditions that are the basis for membership.

If one does not share the basis for membership, one usually, just as many liberals have now done, leaves the party, the trade union movement or the organization that one had been a member of until then.

It appears that Mauricio Rojas is somewhat envious of the Social Democrats' thick wallets. I can understand that. It is my party too. Even more envious we are at the Center Party, for they have even more money, I'm sure.

In my party, we have introduced a rule for members that the representatives who have political assignments for our party instead pay party tax. That is how we finance our activities. The donors reported to Kammarkollegiet are primarily representatives for our political party.

I must ask a question to Mauricio Rojas, who so unreservedly admits that the sole purpose of this is to target the Socialdemokrater and prevent their success in the election. Is this really reasonable?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question and for what she says.

Mr. Speaker! The intention is not to target a party. The intention is to give every single person the freedom not to have to contribute money to a party that they have no reason to want to contribute to.

Allowing people to opt out is a right that existed in the time of the old collective connection. Not even that freedom does one want to grant today.

What happened to the right of reservation that existed? No one dared to use that right, because people knew what it meant to not be part of the trade union movement. We know that it leads to sanctions, direct and informal.

The chairman says that if you don't like the union, you leave it. It is a completely incomprehensible statement that one should simply leave the union when it is the union that ultimately can decide whether or not you have an employment tomorrow.

The association has such a strong right, for example in discussions with the employers, to decide who may leave. That individuals should use that opportunity to leave the association is completely strange. It is much easier to say yes. The small freedom to say no should be a matter of course.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mauricio Rojas, for the answer!

I didn't quite get it. It has been a long day, and we also don't seem to understand each other in many other matters.

I certainly believe that each person is free to choose which associations they wish to be a member of. In our labor market, there are more than one trade union. It is also possible to be a member of the fund and not in the trade union itself otherwise. In that case, one does not have any direct membership fee to a trade union.

It is still somewhat remarkable that in various statements from the Tidö parties, there is some attempt to claim that it would not be a restriction of the freedom of association. It stands quite clear and distinct that the Council on Legislation considers that it can be questioned whether the proposed regulation is compatible with the European Convention.

It is exactly as that which is stated in our report on page 17 – which is not part of the committee's position, but which is the basis for the report – are facts that one completely and utterly ignores, Madam Speaker. I find it a bit strange.

I have been a member of a trade union my entire life. It is Kommunal. I have become involved and also succeeded in influencing my trade union at a local level. I am convinced that if I had wanted to, I could have become even more involved and could have influenced even more. Those opportunities exist in all parties and in all organizations that one chooses to be a member of.

Finally, I shall change the subject completely and say thank you very much to Mauricio. I have appreciated having you in the committee. I wish everyone a happy summer! This is probably – but not what we – the last speech that I have. Thank you very much!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the kind wishes. I wish the same to everyone!

The question concerns what the Council on Legislation says about the freedom of association. If you actually read what the Council on Legislation writes, you can see that the Council on Legislation criticizes the government for the proposal. The Council on Legislation says that it is not proportionate and that it cannot achieve the objective, but not that it violates the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association, on the contrary.

The Council on Legislation has been saying the same thing for 40 years. The freedom of association that we are talking about, and it is the only thing we are talking about here, is that which applies between individuals and the public. Here we are dealing with a typical civil law regulation. It has nothing to do with the constitution. The Council on Legislation has established this infinitely many times.

It would be good not to continue saying things that are not correct. The rest is correct. The Council on Legislation is very critical. That we are in complete agreement on. But do not use the argument that it would conflict with the freedom of association.

We will have to see if it conflicts with international conventions. There is a doubt there. Let us test that. It is important to give the freedom that this entails to the individuals. Let us test whether this freedom is compatible with international conventions. I think it is worth doing. To deny the individuals that freedom is, to me, very strange.

Thank you for the kind greetings! I give them to you as well and to everyone else!

(THIRD DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know that the Committee on the Constitution has had a long day of debate, but the rule to speak via the Speaker still applies.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! I must begin with a personal reflection. I entered the Riksdag in 2022 and had previously followed parliamentary politics mostly partly from a voluntary commitment in the municipality where I live, and partly from a general interest in social issues.

I had not seen the extent of the expressions on social media. What is most painful is that it is a relatively very small proportion of the posts that can be regarded as dialogue, debate, or discussion, but it is mostly of the character "think now something unthinkable" or the equivalent. It is very much hate and threats.

I think that we need to take every opportunity to try to get more people interested in democratic issues, simply for the sake of democracy, and the proposals we are discussing here can contribute to that.

If I had not been sitting here all day, I would have signed up to participate in the Riksdag's tent in Almedalen as well, in order to contribute something in any case.

The proposals we are talking about here have, as said, some important points that can contribute to increased transparency in the political processes. The starting point is that there is a legitimate interest among voters and others to be able to obtain information on how both individual candidates and parties finance their activities.

It is also entirely reasonable that parties and candidates cannot receive anonymous contributions or contributions from abroad. Such a ban must, of course, be designed so that it cannot be bypassed in any simple way.

Madam Speaker! Then we have this issue with lobbyists and their contacts with us as members of Parliament or political decision-makers.

From my party's side, we have long advocated for some form of registration of such contacts and meetings. It is highly desirable that we can account for which groupings have contacted us for the purpose of influencing our decision-making.

I still want to be clear that it is not at all because there is always or even often something suspicious about it. For my part, it is often about minority organizations representing Sámi, Torneviens, Jews, Roma, and Swedish-Finns. It is not the least bit strange.

In my other role, however, as an AI policy spokesperson, it happens that I am approached by large American companies – you know which ones – to, for example, share their views on digital sovereignty.

I think that the initiatives to impose stricter requirements on the reporting of funding for candidates and parties, to ban foreign and anonymous money, and to design a system for registering which lobbyists we have contact with can contribute to a better knowledge of, insight into, and understanding of the conditions and circumstances of politics.

Since then, as no one could have missed, we have another proposal to take a position on. It concerns a requirement for consent from members in labor organizations regarding these organizations' support for political parties. This would, therefore, mean that party support from labor organizations would, in some sense, be a voluntary contribution for the members.

The bill is quite complicated. Members who would like to opt out are suggested to notify the association's auditors, who in turn will compile and ensure that the contribution to parties is correspondingly smaller.

The most important objection, I argue, is this: We have an extensive freedom of association in Sweden. This freedom is of great importance for the democratic development in Sweden, as well as for education, culture, sports and a number of other issues.

One must know that while a number of people who are employed in state-owned enterprises, in private businesses or in other large organizations choose to be members of a workers' organization, a portion of what they achieve also goes to an employers' organization. It is the members who pay for it strictly speaking, albeit in a different way. The employers' contributions to employers' organizations such as Svenskt näringsliv are in no way unknown. It is likely to be quite large sums of money.

During the same period that Mauricio Rojas is talking about, contributions have naturally been made, initially perhaps to the Moderaterna but then, in more recent years, gladly via institutes and associations such as Timbro and others.

In this way, the public opinion formation has also been able to be conducted with money from individuals who work in companies, and there is no possibility to make any concession there either. As an employee of AB Volvo, I cannot state that I do not want my share of the surplus to go to these activities.

Pleasantly enough, the engagement in associations is overall very large. Even political parties have been able to see an increase in the number of members, greater than before.

The conclusion is that I think it is highly questionable – which has also been raised in the arguments here – whether it is truly the state's task to regulate how democratically decided membership fees or other revenues are used.

I therefore move for the reservation to be approved.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 16 June.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)