Increased transparency in political processes

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are addressing the report KU39 Increased insight into political processes.

For the first time, a system is being introduced that gives the public better insight into the contacts between organizations and political decision-makers. Taken together, the government's bill is about strengthening transparency, reducing the risk of improper influence, and giving citizens better opportunities to scrutinize who is trying to influence politics and how the political activities are financed.

The proposal contains several significant reforms to strengthen trust in our democratic system, for example, a ban on anonymous contributions.

The report also addresses stricter requirements for the reporting of parties' finances as well as increased transparency regarding how lobbyists and other actors attempt to influence political decisions. It is proposed that lobbyists and other organizations shall register with Kammarkollegiet and be able to report the contact they have had with political decision-makers.

Mr. Speaker! In the report, we can also take note of proposals for legislative changes that strengthen citizens' freedom regarding how their membership fees to labor market organizations are used.

Membership in a labor market organization often matters for the individual who chooses such a membership. It often provides stability and security in everyday life by knowing that the employment one holds has an extra safety net.

In many cases, it is not a realistic alternative to leave the organization simply because one opposes a part of the membership fee going to a political party, as one is dependent on the union standing on the individual's side in an eventual conflict with the employer.

The Tidö parties' proposal increases citizens' right to themselves govern how their own money can be used, which feels quite obvious.

But, Mr. Speaker, although this is a reform that provides increased freedom of choice for the citizens, the proposal has caused a united opposition to see red. The opposition parties – Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet, Miljöpartiet, and Centerpartiet – consider it a bad proposal that the Swedish people should be allowed to decide more over how their own money should be used.

The government's proposal, which is supported by the Sweden Democrats, is actually very simple: If a labor market organization uses membership fees to provide financial support to a political party, the individual member shall have the right to state that their own paid membership fee may not be used for that purpose.

So, it is not about banning or restricting party contributions. It is also not about banning trade unions or employer organizations from supporting political parties. It is not even about stopping a single krona from going to a party if the members want it.

No, Mr. Speaker, what the Tidö parties now want to implement is to give the individual member a choice of how his or her membership fee shall be used – a choice to be able to say no if one does not want one's paid membership fee to be able to be funneled further to a political party such as the Social Democrats. It is fundamentally a question of freedom of choice, and it is therefore remarkable that the entire united opposition opposes this reform.

We can take note of the opposition in the reservation that has been submitted to the committee. The meaning of the reservation is that it is preferred that today's system, where membership fees can be forwarded to parties, should continue as usual.

When it comes to party membership, campaign contributions or other political donations, we start from the individual's free choice. Why should membership fees specifically be treated differently?

The Social Democrats, the Centre Party, the Green Party and the Left Party in practice defend a system where the collective's decisions weigh more heavily than the individual's right to decide for themselves. Our side of politics believes in freedom of choice, in democracy and that people are fully capable of deciding for themselves which party they want to support or not support.

Mr. Speaker! Why are parties such as the Social Democrats and the Centre Party so afraid of letting the individual member decide for themselves whether their own membership fee should go towards party politics or not? It is actually a question that everyone following this debate should ask themselves. Those who seek will also find answers.

Mr. Speaker! There is a similar law in Denmark, namely that as a member of an organization, one should not be forced to support a political party. It is high time that we implement a legislative change so that we get a similar system here in Sweden.

The proposed change is fundamentally not a question of trade unions or employers. It is not a question of right or left. It is a question of voluntariness and respect for the individual's political self-determination. Those who wish to support a party shall, of course, be allowed to do so, but those who do not wish to should not also have to be forced to do so through their membership fee to a labor market organization.

The Sweden Democrats welcome the proposal in the report and move for the rejection of the reservation in its entirety.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! Member Westmont refrained from addressing one of the three parts that the bill concerns. It was particularly interesting because the other two parts concern how political parties are financed and what contacts one as a politician has with representatives of the business sector or other entities outside of political life, and the influence one is exposed to in one's political decision-making.

We in Centerpartiet consider it important that changes are implemented here, and it is therefore good that the changes come to fruition, however not before the election in the autumn. The changes do not enter into force before this election campaign.

Martin Westmont stayed with the third part of the bill, namely the one concerning a new law which aims at ensuring that when one as a member pays their fee to a trade union, they should be able to waive the part that may go to a political party. That sounds good. But as a member of the Center Party, I think it is obvious that the legislative changes we pass in the Riksdag, especially if they restrict fundamental civil rights, must be proportionate and accurate. Here, it can be noted that the Council on Legislation actually clearly states that is not the case with this bill.

There are many ways to circumvent the proposal. Therefore, I wonder in what way Martin Westmont justifies that the amendment is introduced despite the Council on Legislation saying that the amendment is toothless.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is fundamentally a question of freedom of choice. Every individual should be allowed to decide for themselves how their membership fee should be used. One should not be forced to have to support a certain organization that is linked to a political party. It can be trade unions, and it also applies to other labor market organizations, for example Svenskt Näringsliv. One should have that possibility if one does not want to support a certain political party through an organization in which one has a membership.

It is not the Council on Legislation that enacts laws or decides what policy we should pursue in Sweden. The Council on Legislation gives its referral response, which the sitting government, of course, takes into account. Sometimes they have good points, and sometimes they have less good points.

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

Malin Björk (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Martin Westmont for the contribution. I do not know if it provided a clear answer.

I hear the member speaking about coercion to support a political party. There is no coercion in a membership in an association; not in a trade union and not in any other association either. We also have the opportunity to gain insight into what a trade union's money is used for.

Now the leader is speaking about the Council on Legislation as a referral body, but what the Council on Legislation does is look at whether a restriction of one of our fundamental civil rights, the freedom of association, is proportionate and whether it achieves its purpose.

I do not know if the member has read the Council on Legislation's opinion carefully, but I see that it is indeed strongly questioned whether the purpose that Martin Westmont speaks so warmly for will be achieved. What is truly remarkable is that it is said to be unclear whether it is actually compatible with the European Convention.

I ask myself whether Martin Westmont cares whether this is a law that would conflict with the European Convention, as is implied in the Council of Legislation's statement.

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

Martin Westmont (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for Malin Björk's contribution to the debate.

We have full confidence that the matter has been prepared in a correct and good manner, and all laws and regulations have been taken into account to arrive at the proposal we have landed on. We have also looked at the question of whether a regulation would conflict with the freedom of association according to the Instrument of Government.

The question concerns the individual's possibilities to choose for themselves how they want their fee to be used. I was touching upon the fact that a person is a member of a trade union because it provides a certain security at the workplace one is in. Then, it might not be possible to leave the trade union because one does not know how it might turn out if one ends up in a conflict with the employer.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! The right to freely form and run associations is usually seen as a prerequisite for Swedish democracy. Even though freedom of association as such was first written into the constitution in 1974, it does not mean that citizens before then were forbidden from forming associations. On the contrary, it was a fundamental right that could not be narrowed by legislative regulations. It was considered more or less self-evident. That freedom of association was nevertheless written in was precisely for the purpose of guaranteeing democracy and protecting citizens against arbitrary state regulations or restrictions when it came to freedom of association.

With the proposal that the government is now presenting through its bill Increased Transparency in Political Processes, specifically aimed at labor market organizations, we believe it is highly questionable whether it is compatible with the Instrument of Government and international conventions' protection of freedom of association.

A united opposition consisting of the Social Democrats, the Green Party, the Centre Party, and the Left Party has submitted a reservation. I move for the reservation to be approved, which means that the Riksdag adopts the government's proposals in the first two points, the Act on transparency in communication for the purpose of influencing political decisions and the Act on amendment to the Act on transparency in funding of parties, with the amendment that Section 32 shall consist of a single paragraph. Furthermore, the reservation implies a rejection of the government's proposal for an Act with provisions on labor market organizations' contributions for party-political purposes. Accordingly, motion 2025/26:4151 and 2025/26:4184 are approved and proposition 2025/26:258 point 2 is rejected.

Regarding the other parts of the bill, that influence actors, or if one prefers, lobbyists, shall register with Kammarkollegiet and report information on their communication with political decision-makers, it is a matter that can be said to be in line with the lobby register that already exists within, for example, the EU Parliament. It may perhaps contribute to further transparency and understanding of opinion-forming. Regarding this, we in the Social Democrats have no objections, nor when it concerns the parties' reporting obligation, that it is expanded and that the scrutiny of the regulatory framework is tightened.

What is more serious is what has been added regarding freedom of association, which specifically targets independent trade unions in the labor market. Through the proposal, restrictions are made on freedom of association, which for a long series of years has functioned well. The proposal has also been investigated by a parliamentary committee, which has not wanted to advocate for this solution. There are also several referral bodies that have advised against it.

Mr. Speaker! There are also a number of international examples of how states have tried to restrict the rights of workers and free trade unions through various reforms. One example is the former communist regime in Poland. New laws were introduced and Solidarity was banned, which for several years had to conduct underground activities, before eventually popular protests and general engagement led to the first free elections being held in 1989 and the communist regime fell. A free trade union movement and people's right to organize eventually became the path to a democratic society.

Mr. Speaker! To make it difficult for people to organize themselves in a peaceful way is to restrict democracy. Now, some may object that the proposal baked into the bill we have here to take a stand on does not have such far-reaching consequences. That may be so, but even small steps in a certain direction are worth taking seriously and considering. That which may seem harmless at first provides openings for new steps forward.

The structure of association life is connected to our democracy and the Swedish societal model. That, as in the proposal being presented, is open to individual members being able to block an association's decision in one way or another involves a considerable amount of risks that I believe are good to think through.

In the bill, the focus is on just labor market organizations, as they say. It is not without reason that one might wonder about the purpose and why it concerns just party contributions. How are road associations, consumer associations, sports associations, and cultural associations assessed?

There is a democratic structure which means that majority decisions are made in an association. This happens in open processes at membership meetings or annual general meetings. The member who wants to change something can raise their voice and act in a democratic manner or simply leave the association and perhaps be involved in forming a new one, which also happens in a number of cases. An association that does not have its members' trust cannot function in the long run. This happens without state involvement.

I want to refer to the text in our reservation, Mr. Speaker, where it appears that the 2023 transparency committee judged that no special requirements should be introduced to provide the possibility of consent from individual members when it concerns contributions from organizations in the labor market to parties or individual candidates. There is already good transparency today regarding the contributions that certain trade unions and a number of other organizations provide to different political parties. Information on the contributions provided is available in the reports that the parties have submitted to Kammarkollegiet.

When it comes to workers' organizations, it might be interesting to know that, as I understand it, there are only two trade unions, GS-facket and IF Metall, that have assembly and member decisions to support the Social Democratic Party. LO, for example, has no individual members at all.

Mr. Speaker! We consider that the protection of freedom of association carries more weight than the restrictions the proposal entails, which are furthermore more extensive than necessary. It can further be questioned whether the proposed law achieves the stated purpose that a portion of the membership fee shall be voluntary for the members. The Council on Legislation also questions exactly this, which we also heard in the exchange of remarks recently, and argues that the proposal should not be used as a basis for legislation.

Another purpose stated is that a member of a labor market organization, as it is called, shall be able to express that they oppose the organization providing a monetary contribution to a political party. But this explanation shall not be submitted to the organization as such, but to an auditor, who shall then forward how many such explanations have been received. A member's dissatisfaction with a decision regarding a contribution will therefore not reach out in any other way than via an anonymized piece of information regarding the number of explanations submitted. It is complicated and bureaucratic, as I see it. We also note that only a small number of referral bodies have commented on the proposal and that the Council on Legislation has stated that it would have been desirable for the government to have specifically requested the referral bodies to comment also on this issue.

Mr. Speaker! We consider that against this background, the Riksdag should reject the bill with provisions on labor market organizations' contributions for party-political purposes.

In this speech, Peter Hedberg (S) concurred.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! The comparison with Solidarity in Poland and the communist oppression against the trade unions was exaggerated. I hope that the member in the future limits their comparisons to what is reasonable.

Then the member knows just as well as I do – if he has read the Council for Legislation's statement properly – that the proposal regarding the possibility to opt out of giving money to political parties does not violate the constitutionally protected freedom of association. It is very clear in the Council for Legislation's statement. That is how it has been for 50 years regarding the collective agreement and much else, and that is because this is primarily defined as a civil law agreement.

I want to ask the member why one opposes the simple fact that a person should be able to say no to contributing to a political party that they do not sympathize with. Is it not a minimal principle that people should be able to say no to forced contributions to the Social Democratic Party?

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! Mauricio Rojas highlights the individual member's position. I also want to highlight the association democracy and the freedom of association. We believe that this is a questionable interference in the freedom of association.

This will reach out as anonymized explanations submitted to an auditor – before an annual general meeting, I assume. In the proposal that has been presented, it has not been further described how this is to function in practice.

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

Mauricio Rojas (L)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member very much for the answer.

We agree that there are practical problems and that the proposal may not achieve its practical purpose. But it is about a principle: The individual member in a trade union shall have the right not to give money to the Social Democrats. I understand that the Social Democrats defend the current order, and the reason is quite obvious. But I think this principle is more important than a party's interests.

The same argumentation was used for a long time to defend the collective connection. Now we all agree that it constituted a violation of individuals' political freedom. It was exactly the same argumentation – that the freedom of association would be violated and so on. But even in the case of the collective connection, the right to opt out existed. That simple right existed then. Here it does not exist, when it comes to collectively connecting the wallets of the trade union members.

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

Per-Arne Håkansson (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is interesting that Mauricio Rojas brings in just the Social Democrats in this context. As I have assessed it, this is about labor market organizations' contributions to different parties. According to what I have understood, there are a number of organizations that provide contributions to other parties. Why does Mauricio Rojas direct the argumentation and reasoning specifically at the trade union organizations, which conduct an activity that is completely open for anyone to take part in and participate in?

(FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER: Since this was a closing remark, Mauricio Rojas does not have the opportunity to answer the question this time.)

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

Mats Green (M)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposed decision.

I also want to begin by saying that we in the Moderates stand behind the legislative proposals that the committee presents in the Committee on the Constitution's report number 39. We believe there is a strong need for increased transparency in politics. The public has the right to know which financial interests are attempting to influence our political processes. It is a fundamental democratic principle.

The ban on anonymous and foreign contributions is something we can support fully. It is reasonable that Swedish parties are financed by Swedish sources and that we know who is behind the contributions. It strengthens confidence in democracy when people can see who is trying to influence politics.

The requirement that lobbyists should register and report their communication with political decision-makers is also something we can accept. Transparency is important. If someone tries to influence policy, this should happen openly and not behind closed doors. It is a reasonable measure to, again, strengthen the oversight of politics.

We also note that the committee has made a thorough assessment and concluded that these proposals are compatible with the constitution and the European Convention. It is important; we cannot introduce rules that conflict with our fundamental rights.

Regarding what has been discussed extensively in the speaker's chair and the reply chairs here earlier, I can state that the regulation of labor market organizations' contributions for party-political purposes is a significant change. The committee notes that this is a principled novelty in Swedish law. It means that individual members have the right to declare that their membership fee may not be used for party-political contributions. The committee has carefully considered whether this regulation is compatible with freedom of association and assesses that it is – just as it is in most other democratic, non-corrupt countries that we usually compare ourselves with.

We share the committee's assessment that there are overriding reasons for this regulation. It is important to respect the individual's right to political self-determination. Members should have the opportunity to say no to their fee being used for party-political purposes, if they so wish.

The committee has, as stated, Mr. Speaker, conducted a thorough preparation of these proposals. The committee notes that the basis is sufficient to make a decision, despite the fact that the preparation has been questioned by some. We can also note, Mr. Speaker, that self-interest never lies, and that is, in fact, what this is about.

Overall, the Moderaterna believe that the Riksdag should adopt the legislative proposals. They strengthen transparency in politics, ensure that parties are funded in a responsible manner, and respect fundamental rights. It provides increased insight into the political processes, and that, Mr. Speaker, is good for democracy in general and for our Swedish democracy in particular.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the joint reservation in this report.

First, I still intended to be somewhat positive about this matter, even though I have a reservation. In line with the government, I believe that public insight into political processes must be improved. It is also for that reason that we in Vänsterpartiet welcome the changes proposed in the law on insight into party funding, which means that parties and others covered by this law are prohibited from receiving anonymous and foreign contributions, regardless of the amount. We also welcome that the parties' reporting obligation is expanded and that the scrutiny of compliance with this regulatory framework is tightened.

We also, Mr. Speaker, stand behind the government's proposal to introduce a so-called lobby register, which shall report communication between lobbyists and political decision-makers. I think this proposal from the government is very good. One thing that I have however noted – and I do not think I am the only one in the opposition who has noted this – is that both the Moderaternas and Kristdemokraternas members during the investigation itself were against a lobby register and even reserved themselves in the part that concerned just this. I think it is good that the government has overridden its own members and representatives in the investigation. But it is not without one starting to wonder a little bit who it actually is that is in control.

Mr. Speaker! In the government's bill, a new law is also proposed with provisions regarding the contributions of labor market organizations for party-political purposes. This bill means that an individual member in an organization that provides contributions for party-political purposes shall have the right to issue a declaration as to whether their membership fee may be used for such contributions or not.

Regarding the question of introducing a requirement for consent from individual members when organizations in the labor market use a portion of the membership fee to provide financial support to a party, it is our view that it is clearly questionable whether this is compatible with the Instrument of Government or the international conventions' protection for the very fundamental freedom of association. This is also what the investigation concluded in the report Increased Transparency in Political Processes, where it was proposed that this proposal should not be implemented. Therefore, it was only presented as part of its considerations. Even previous investigations have drawn the same conclusion.

The Council on Legislation also states in its opinion that the basis for this bill appears fragile as the regulation, according to their interpretation, appears to be a non-binding code of conduct and there is no possibility to impose any sanctions on an organization, according to the proposal.

Mr. Speaker! This is very fundamental. It should not be the state's business to make restrictions on how an association chooses to make its democratic decisions. Today, there is a well-functioning order that constitutes a fundamental part of the freedom of association that we have in this country and which, in my opinion, should be protected at all costs. A decision that points out that certain parts of an association's activities shall be covered by different rules than others risks opening a door in a way that can have far-reaching consequences, which are not proportionate in view of the problems that the government says it wants to solve.

Furthermore, there is today good transparency regarding the contributions that trade unions donate to political parties. In Sweden, very few trade unions have decided to provide contributions to political parties. But purely in principle, I believe it should and must continue to be the members in the respective organization who decide how they best wish to conduct their activities and manage the funds they have collected together.

I note that the committee's majority supports this bill. But we also write in the report that, for example, the Council on Legislation considers it uncertain whether the proposal is compatible with the European Convention. It is therefore not the case that we in the opposition are just making things up.

(cont. § 14)

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