Partypolitical lotteries

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! We are here today to debate the government's bill on the party-political lotteries. The party-political lotteries have over the years been marred by criticism, scandals, and many debates. The government wants, with this bill, to increase consumer protection by ensuring that it must clearly appear during the sale and marketing of the lotteries that the proceeds go to a political party.

The Government considers that the exceptions and conditions in the legislation that political parties in Sweden have granted themselves are no longer justifiable. Political parties that essentially run commercial multi-million lotteries should not be exempted from paying tax or from credit bans and bonus limitations. It is also not reasonable to lump the party-political lotteries together with the public benefit lotteries, which most often in a smaller scale aim to promote, for example, the local heritage society or the local football team.

Madam Speaker! In a democratic and free society like Sweden, parties and politicians should not secure their own benefits and advantages while simultaneously sitting and making the political decisions. That is what has happened in this case. It feels both a bit dirty and immoral.

I also want to be clear that nothing that the government proposes in this bill is aimed at or in any way intended to affect or include civil society's public benefit lotteries. On the contrary, the government wants to protect the public benefit lotteries by removing the party-political lotteries from their legislation and no longer making it possible for parties to hide their lotteries among the public benefit lotteries.

Madam Speaker! This is important for several reasons. For the first, it is important for increased transparency. People should know that the proceeds from the lottery tickets they buy go to a political party. For the second, it is important for increased consumer protection. Customers should not be burdened with debt or fall into addiction due to credit sales or a lack of bonus limits. For the third, it is important for increased democracy and increased justice. Even the political parties, which in turn sit and decide on the taxes of employees and entrepreneurs, should also participate in paying tax and contributing to society. One should not escape and force everyone else to pay.

Madam Speaker! I am pleased that today we have a government that reviews and addresses all shortcomings and errors in society. This also includes the issues within the party-political lotteries. Indeed, there has been no shortage of problems with the party-political lotteries.

In September 2024, Dagens Nyheter revealed that Kombispel's external telemarketing company used aggressive sales methods targeted at elderly and confused individuals. Former employees testified that they had been instructed to be intrusive and sell lottery tickets to people who likely did not understand the terms of purchase. Dagens Nyheter has also reported that individuals in the Social Democrats' party leadership were warned about these sales methods a year before the revelation, but despite this, continued in the same manner with the same telemarketing company.

In 2017, the Gambling Inspectorate criticized that tickets from the Social Democrats' lottery were sold on credit to already indebted persons. In March this year, the Gambling Inspectorate again directed criticism towards the Social Democratic lottery Kombispel because it failed to conduct the operations in a sound and safe manner with strong consumer protection, and because the tickets were not sold under controlled and security-assured forms. In May this year, the Social Democrats were sentenced to 3 million kronor in fines for violating the gambling act. These are just a few examples.

Madam Speaker! We cannot have it this way. This is not how parties and politicians in Sweden should behave. There must be some form of order and discipline. Otherwise, the voters' trust in us politicians and our parties risks being damaged.

Madam Speaker! How fortunate that we have a government that is now addressing this, a government that wants to increase transparency and strengthen consumer protection regarding the partisan lotteries! No voter I have met has thought that the government's or the bill's measures are unreasonable. But probably all voters I have met have expressed disgust and frustration over how it has functioned with the partisan lotteries over the years. Shame on all of you critics who have the nerve to claim that the government's bill is undemocratic! I move for approval of the government's bill.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I do not intend to be ashamed, but I believe there is an element of undemocratic action from the government.

I want to start by discussing the basic question itself. That public service activities, including political parties, associations, organizations and so on, strengthen their own financing, we think is good. I assume that the Moderates in general also think it is good that one can strengthen their own financing and make themselves more independent. To ask for money and to get private individuals to donate to activities, including parties, is okay.

I assume that for a political party it should also be okay to have some sales of campaign clothing, coffee mugs and so on, especially to active members who, for example, are out in election campaigns. In that way, they can contribute to the party.

You can sell coffee mugs, but you are not allowed to sell lottery tickets. Is it a general problem for the Moderaterna that parties increase their own financing? Is it a problem that they ask for money? Is it a problem that they sell coffee mugs and campaign clothing? Or is it only lottery tickets that are the problem?

I will start with those questions. I will then ask further questions about the other parts of the bill.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, the lottery tickets are not the problem. It is a lack of legislation on how the lottery tickets have been managed and sold that is the problem.

I also note that Miljöpartiet, among other things in its reservation and its special statement, is very keen to be clear that it, just as Member Berglund is now highlighting, can affect the parties' own finances and operations.

I don't quite agree with that. It is still the politics and the arguments that should determine how popular Sweden's political parties are and how strong their operations are, not how many lottery tickets they sell or, for that matter, that they need to pay tax on the lottery tickets they sell.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is still the case that we have eight parliamentary parties. They have very different economies. Miljöpartiet has a very weak economy compared to the majority of other parties.

It is clear that a party fund is very important. We pay, for example, in Miljöpartiet what we call a party tax in order, like several other parties, to strengthen the party in the election campaign. The party raises money in that way.

I return to my question. Do the Moderates consider it a problem that the parties withdraw money in that way? That is how it seems in the bill.

I also wanted to ask about the other parts, for example, credits that you want to prevent here. I think it is illogical and strange. You forbid members or sympathizers from ordering one or two tickets and then paying afterwards against an invoice.

People do that when they order things at home. They might not even always trust a political party or a non-profit organization, but they want to have the tickets in hand before they pay. I think that is completely natural. It prevents this bill.

The question that is almost the main issue is: Why are different public service activities, party-political activities separated from associations and organizations that are also public service-oriented? Why should the two parts be separated in the legislation? Is it that the Moderaterna do not consider political parties to be public service-oriented? That is what I wonder.

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! There were many questions at once. I will try in any case to answer the first question from Member Berglund regarding whether it is a problem that the parties finance themselves through lottery sales. No, it is not a problem.

What is a problem is that the parties are exempt from paying tax on their profit. That the parties do not need to clearly inform that the proceeds from the lottery tickets go to political parties is also a problem. It is not a problem in itself that the parties sell lottery tickets to strengthen their operations.

Why then distinguish the party-political lotteries from the public benefit lotteries? It is exactly as I said in my speech: It is to protect the other public benefit lotteries. It is to be clear that certain lotteries are sold by political parties that are major power holders in this country and legislate and decide over the citizens' everyday lives. They shall be separated and have legislation that clarifies how they are allowed to act.

We shall safeguard the public benefit lotteries in such a way that they can continue to operate as they do today.

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Carl Nordblom, for mentioning some of the parts that I think are very important every time we discuss gambling in whatever form it may be. It is about increasing consumer protection and ensuring that fewer people fall into gambling abuse and gambling addiction.

It is precisely because I think those questions are so incredibly important that I become a bit reflective. We have stood here in the chamber and debated exactly how we can curb gambling addiction and gambling abuse in society.

The previous Social Democratic-led government has presented proposals on how we can do this by, for example, reducing very serious marketing that goes to and reaches children and young people and lures them into abuse.

The Tidö parties have voted no. They have voted no to protecting our children and young people from being reached by harmful advertising. There, consumer protection played no role. There, it was not immoral. Instead, they have served the interests of the large gambling companies and protected their interests.

But when it comes to scratch cards – which, according to the Public Health Agency, is the least harmful form of gambling because it does not lead to gambling addiction – one suddenly starts to talk about morality.

It makes me wonder. Are the Moderaterna prepared to take greater responsibility and review the entire gambling area and seriously go after the gambling companies that accelerate gambling abuse and gambling addiction in our society? Or is it just about getting at the Social Democratic funding?

(Applause)

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! The member claims that the party-political lotteries have not been harmful. It is probably not many who agree with the member's description of it. This applies perhaps especially to the elderly confused demented who have been affected by the aggressive sales methods. I do not share the view that it has been a harmless activity.

I return to the question of the extended consumer protection. The Government has done a great deal, and it will continue to do a great deal to strengthen consumer protection and the duty of care in the licensed gambling market.

The members of the committee also know that in February an investigation was commissioned on how we can, among other things, further shut out the unlicensed gambling companies from Sweden. Yesterday, Finance Minister Niklas Wykman was clear that gambling on credit with borrowed money shall no longer be permitted in Sweden in order to reduce indebtedness. These are two excellent examples that the government takes the issue very seriously.

I must also ask a question to the member. You speak about the large gambling companies. Which gambling companies are you referring to? Are you referring to the licensed gambling companies in Sweden that are covered by consumer protection, which follow Swedish laws and regulations and are part of the duty of care? Or are you referring to the unlicensed companies that target Sweden and can take advantage of the fact that they do not need to follow our laws? That is exactly what we are trying to address with the two examples I mentioned.

For me, it is the unlicensed companies that we must target and not the licensed ones. If we target and regulate the licensed companies, which today follow the law and are covered by the duty of care, we make it harder for them to operate and compete with the unlicensed companies and retain their customers within the Swedish duty of care.

(Applause)

(ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN: I just want to remind that we address each other as "the member" or by name and not with "you".)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! The licensed gambling companies are also a problem today, unfortunately. Today, it is actually completely permitted for licensed gambling companies to offer new customer bonuses.

Very many of the associations that exist for gambling addiction, and which safeguard and work to help people who have fallen into gambling addiction, have contacted me and told me about this. It is very interesting how the licensed gambling companies act.

They are, in fact, targeting people who have recently turned 18 and are sending out new customer bonuses to them. This means that from the moment one turns 18, one can fall into deep gambling addiction and develop gambling abuse within licensed gambling companies.

It is not that we are standing here debating today. We are debating raffles, where one usually wins pillowcases and kitchen utensils. We are not debating licensed gambling companies that still have the opportunity to operate with aggressive marketing and new customer bonuses aimed at 18-year-olds.

This debate is about something else. Let us talk about what it is really about. Answer straight, Carl Nordblom: What is this debate really about? Is it about protecting the consumers, or is it about strangling the largest opposition party's funding?

(Applause)

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! It is perfectly reasonable that the government now wants to increase consumer protection and transparency regarding the partisan lotteries. The Social Democrats and the member are now beating the big drum and saying that it is a threat to democracy. I do not believe you are serious when you speak of a threat to democracy.

The reason why you are now getting aggressive and committing blunders in the debate is probably that you are a bit stressed. You think it is a difficult debate to handle and that it is embarrassing. You know yourselves that you have really messed up.

I still cannot help but think about what it would be like if the Social Democrats had had as much sympathy and felt as much compassion for all those millions of Swedish wage earners and entrepreneurs who, over the years, have been taxed with the world's highest tax burden. They have struggled, fought, and worked hard for their money, which was then taxed. Instead, you are now taking the fight so that you yourselves can avoid paying tax on lotteries that you have sold in an aggressive manner to the elderly and confused from telemarketing companies on the Spanish coast with links to gang criminals. Imagine if you had made that prioritization!

(Applause)

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! I was struck by something that Carl Nordblom said from the rostrum. He said that it is about safeguarding the public utility lotteries and that the government safeguards these.

I have a question for Carl Nordblom. The government has given Svenska Spel increased opportunities to conduct lotteries. It was launched as a technicality, but it has resulted in Svenska Spel starting its own lotteries that directly compete with the lotteries of community organizations. This means that the revenues for community organizations and civil society are decreasing. In what way is this protecting the public benefit lotteries?

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! To return a little bit to the exchange I had with the member from the Socialdemokraterna, I would like to say that it is more about protecting the Swedish players. We have Swedish players who will continue to buy lotteries and play on online casinos in this country regardless of what legislation we have.

I want these players to remain within the licensed market so that they are covered by the duty of care and can be taken into care if they, for example, abuse their gambling. This can be done, among other things, through Svenska Spel and the other licensed gambling companies. This should also be possible through the public utility companies.

I do not understand the contradiction the member is speaking about – that it would not benefit the public service lotteries if we also get to retain more players within the duty of care and the licensed market, for example via Svenska Spel.

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

Rickard Nordin (C)

Madam Speaker! This is simply a matter of competition. One allows Svenska Spel to compete with the public service lotteries. It is not about safeguarding the public service lotteries. I also do not see how it would become safer for a player if state-owned companies enter and compete on the market, if we want to call it that.

Instead, it reduces the revenues for community life. It certainly increases the revenues to the state, but it also leads to more centralization and to fewer opportunities for the scout mother to be present at the camp and fewer opportunities to finance the camp for the football children. It is not to protect the public benefit lotteries to let Svenska Spel compete with them. Less money goes back to community life.

It is not about protecting the players either. This makes no difference, because you do not retain the players to a greater extent within the licensed [sector] just because you also allow Svenska Spel to operate lotteries. You are only moving players between different companies. This simply does not add up.

I understand that one wants to compete out the association life, and that is how one does it. But you say that you do it for the players' sake and so that we can protect the consumers. That is simply not true, and there is no support for anything of the sort. This is only about reducing the association life's opportunities to conduct lotteries. It is very serious, and in the end, it will cost society a lot.

My question remains: If one now thinks that one should safeguard the public service lotteries, why does one then let the state-owned company operate lotteries?

(Applause)

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker and Member Nordin! I do not share the Member's description of reality. These are two completely different things – two completely different forms of play.

I think competition is good. It is good that we have several actors in the gambling market. I think it is good that there are both public service lotteries, which fulfill their function, and licensed gambling companies, which fulfill their function. I think, in any case, that competition in a market is good, and I hope that the Center Party also continues to think that competition in the market is good.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! This matter consists of two parts. It is partly a government bill where the government wants to make it more difficult for, or possibly even prevent, the Social Democrats and their affiliated organizations from conducting lotteries, and partly some motions from the general motion period in autumn regarding gambling and lotteries. I shall say something about both of these parts.

The proposition originates from an investigation commissioned approximately two years ago by the Tidö Government with the aim of reducing the Social Democrats' election budget. The government justified this by stating that it is inappropriate for parties to conduct lottery activities, given the negative consequences they may have. It was also justified by the view that the scope for lotteries is considered limited.

A leading representative for Tidösamarbetet expressed early on that the actual purpose, however, was to deprive the Social Democrats of an important source of income. Next year will be a poorer May Day parade for the Social Democrats, it was also said.

The investigation was presented and has now resulted in a government bill where it is proposed that party-political lotteries shall be regulated under a different framework than other public benefit lotteries. This shall mean that lotteries organized by political parties shall not be exempted from gaming tax in the same way as is done for other associations and organizations. They shall not be exempted from credit prohibitions in the same way as when it concerns other associations and organizations. They shall also not be exempted from bonus limits in the same way as when it concerns other associations and organizations.

Furthermore, it is proposed that it needs to be clearer that it is a political party – and then, of course, also which political party – that is the sender of the lottery that someone purchases. Also, there, political parties shall be subject to a separate regulatory framework that shall not apply to other associations and organizations.

Miljöpartiet responded to the referral sent out in connection with the investigation and has also submitted a supplementary motion to the bill. The referral response and the supplementary motion are approximately identical in wording.

Miljöpartiet considers that the Tidö government, in this issue as in so many others, is way off. The bill with its proposal is both illogical and in some parts unreasonable. But it is also fundamentally quite unpleasant.

Political parties are public-benefit entities. In a democracy, they should be regarded as public-benefit entities and not be separated from other associations and organizations that are also public-benefit. The same rules should apply to all public-benefit activities. Everything else is illogical. This applies to taxes and fees, and it also applies to rules regarding credit and bonuses.

It is reasonable to strengthen the information requirement when selling and marketing public benefit lotteries. The person who buys a lottery ticket has every right to clearly know which organization one supports through their lottery purchase. It is, however, unreasonable to separate party-political lotteries from the lotteries of other associations and organizations.

The proposition is also unpleasant. To exploit one's position in a temporary political majority to accurately limit or strangle an opposition party's funding lies on the other side of democracy.

The proposition is also unpleasant when it comes to what can happen in the future. Are other parts of the public service sector next in line, such as associations and organizations? I have several times during this parliamentary term warned against the suspicion cast upon culture, civil society, and association life that is currently taking place in the public debate, not infrequently with representatives from one of the four parties in the government base as the senders.

I have met several organizations that feel affected. Islamic Relief, for example, has been subjected to more than 500 audits in recent years – always with minor or no remarks. Such things naturally require enormous resources that are drawn from the important activities that the organization wants to carry out.

Another example is Civil Right Defenders. Leading Tidö politicians have expressed that public funding should be withdrawn from this organization. They received 10 million kronor from Postkodlotteriet this spring. Is it Postkodlotteriet that is next in line after the political parties if one continues to provide grants to organizations that are disagreeable to the government?

What happens if this law, where public service activities are separated, is actually challenged? Does it hold up against national and international legislation and scrutiny if, for example, one of the large commercial actors, netcasino, tests the legislation and appeals? Does the entire non-profit sector risk losing its exemptions, its funding, in the same way that the Socialdemokraterna might be doing now?

These questions are being asked in civil society right now. I do not believe that civil society organizations will be the least bit calmed by this debate, regardless of what is said from this rostrum during the course of the debate.

Madam Speaker! This was the part about party-political lotteries. The Green Party therefore has no collective motion to reject the bill but has instead chosen to motion for rejection point by point, with the exception of the part on information requirements. There, we believe again that the same requirements should obviously apply to all public-benefit lotteries.

Madam Speaker! In the second part, with proposals from the general motion period, the Green Party also has a couple of proposals. One is about the fact that the public sector needs to strengthen the work against gambling issues and gambling addiction.

Gambling addiction is a serious problem that has a destructive effect and can ruin people's lives. And it does not only concern the person who gambles themselves but also, just like in all addictions, the people around them.

It is about the large, commercial actors – so not about the lotteries I have spoken about earlier in the debate, because neither party-political lotteries nor other association-run lotteries and the like lead to gambling addiction. This can be read about in the government's investigation. The association-run lotteries, bingo halls and so on, including those run by parties, should rather be encouraged than countered.

Lotteries are a very good way to bring in money for one's operations. This applies to both non-profit activities in general and political parties. One can, of course, go out and beg for money. Miljöpartiet does so. Many voluntary organizations, aid organizations, research foundations, and humanitarian operations do so in that way. It works reasonably well, actually also for Miljöpartiet.

Sometimes we also sell things, for example a coffee mug for 130 kronor, mostly to active members who want to be involved and contribute. However, we do not sell lottery tickets. We would not be able to afford that. But many probably think it is more fun to contribute to what they consider an important activity if there is also a small element of suspense involved, if one has the chance to win a couple of candlesticks, a table runner, or whatever it may be – because it is that type of prize we are talking about.

It has, however, become difficult for the associations to conduct lotteries, car bingo, and whatever it may be. It is expensive, it involves financial risks, and it is administratively complicated.

Miljöpartiet wants to change this. We want to appoint an inquiry to resolve the complications. We believe, in fact, that it is good for associations, and for all intents and purposes also parties, to increase their own financing and make themselves more independent of public support.

It should be the municipality, not the Gambling Inspectorate, that carries out supervision – at least up to a certain level, perhaps 5 million over a five-year period.

The supervision fees have increased very significantly. For a sports association, it costs 60,000 kronor in practice to apply to have a lottery, and even then, it is not even certain that the application will be granted. Spelinspektionen's requirements are very unpredictable, and they also set the fee levels themselves.

Also, the level for how large the profits may be would need to be adjusted upwards. Today, a basic amount applies. It could be raised.

We want to review this and much more to help the associations.

Madam Speaker! Unlike the four parties in the government basis, the Green Party wants to make it easier, not harder, for non-profit and public benefit activities to increase their own financing.

I support all reservations from Miljöpartiet but choose to move for approval of reservation 5 and reservation 13 in the report.

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Mats Berglund for the speech.

Let me begin by addressing this regarding the voluntary sector. I perceived that Mats Berglund expressed some concern regarding the rest of civil society and other associations. He mentioned, for example, Islamic Relief. If one is Islamic Relief, which has clear links to the Muslim Brotherhood, one should absolutely feel some concern as long as we are part of the government basis. But that has nothing to do with the voluntary sector as such. There is no reason for us to attack associations or civil society on the grounds of their desire to do good for our society.

Then coffee cups were mentioned. If it had been the case that coffee cups were sold on a subscription basis where you received coffee cups every month for a certain amount and one sat on the Solkusten and utilized gang criminals to call and deceive elderly and demented people into buying coffee cups with a turnover of 150 million annually, we would have had an opinion on that – absolutely!

It would have been tasteful if Mats Berglund, in the same breath as he criticized the regulations we are now moving forward with, also raised the problems that have actually existed. There are people who have truly been affected by this. A fairly large proportion of the population also considers it deeply immoral for Sweden's largest party to conduct this type of activity in this way. It is an embarrassing farce.

It would have been interesting, given that Miljöpartiet aspires to power together with this party, if Mats Berglund had mentioned this in his speech. I therefore intended to ask the member how he views the fiascos that have been uncovered in recent years.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Christiansson, for the questions and the opportunity to discuss this further!

The Chairman began by saying that one is not attacking civil society. As I said in my speech and as I have returned to on quite many occasions – this comes up in almost every conversation I have with the cultural life and the voluntary sector – parts of the voluntary sector, in any case, feel very scrutinized, not infrequently from this rostrum.

Take, for example, popular education and study associations. In every debate we have about popular education, events from five or six years ago are brought up, even though the Popular Education Council and popular education itself have handled these issues. I also mentioned a few other examples from the rostrum.

Furthermore, it was the question of being able to buy coffee mugs on a subscription basis. I do not believe that Miljöpartiet has offered this to the members. On the other hand, we offer an opportunity to donate money via autogiro, which is essentially the same thing. The difference is that one receives something symbolic. It is not that I buy a coffee mug for 130 kronor, but I know that I am contributing to Miljöpartiet and to the election campaign.

When it comes to the ridiculous history, I actually do not think it is my place to comment on it. I do not think this matter is about that. Just as I said in my speech, these are things that have come up after the entire issue began to be discussed. The issue is about curtailing the Social Democrats' possibilities for self-financing.

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! This has been discovered afterwards, says Mats Berglund. I will go through the chronological order in more detail in my speech later, but we can go very far back in time and see the criticism that has been directed at the activities that the Socialdemokraterna have conducted and the immorality in them.

Then I do not know if Mats totally misunderstood me as Miljöpartiet would sell coffee cups on a subscription basis. Of course not. It was a metaphor intended to somewhat break down just that argument, that one can sell a coffee cup as a political party. Now we are talking about something completely different. We are talking about an organized activity that sells on a subscription basis to the elderly through gang criminals on the Solkusten and aggressive telephone sales. It is clear that it is something completely different than selling a coffee cup as a political party.

I would like to ask a question to Mats Berglund. I share Mats's feeling and ambition for the association life, and I think it is important to safeguard the association life.

But let me make a comparison. When we talk about public benefit lotteries, I think most people think of the local guys who play table tennis or hockey. They walk around or stand in the square and sell lottery tickets to contribute a few kronor to their club. One does not think of a multi-million empire – 150 million annually – with sales organizations and aggressive sales techniques to trick people. They are two completely different things.

Doesn't Mats Berglund see the difference between the two? Do you see no difference between my boy's little table tennis club and the empire of group companies that the Social Democrats run with organized sales of lottery activities? Is there no difference? Is it only I who think so? I don't quite understand the reasoning from Mats.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! Member Christiansson thinks that buying a symbolic coffee cup is something completely different than one or two lottery tickets a month. That is what a subscription for lottery tickets is about. It is not a question of a hundred thousand scratch cards falling down to be scraped. One does not become addicted to that either. It is about one or two lottery tickets for a couple of hundred kronor. If you do not pay them, it should normally not go to the Enforcement Authority, but it has happened some time. The Social Democrats I have spoken with say that the association life, for example IOGT-NTO, sells many lottery tickets and brings in large sums. Is it the sum of how much one sells for that is the problem, or is it that the Social Democrats are a political party that is in opposition right now and you are governing in a majority and have the opportunity to choke off the funding?

It is clear that there is a difference between large and small actors. I mentioned that the individual ice hockey club has problems selling the lottery tickets because it becomes expensive and complicated. I do not understand why you do not take the opportunity to facilitate their activities. That is the answer to the questions.

(Applause)

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Just as Mats Berglund's Miljöpartiet, the Liberalerna is a party that stands up for liberal democracy, the rules of democracy, and a strong civil society that has the power to criticize those in power when needed. Our parties also have other things in common, for example, that we look to the individual and that we can see when there are structures and power relations that infringe upon people's freedom and opportunities.

I also have the privilege of working with disability and elderly issues in the Riksdag. A common conversation I receive, unfortunately, is from people describing how their relatives with disabilities or dementia are subjected to aggressive marketing to persuade them to buy lottery tickets. It is a broader problem than the one we are discussing today, but we have repeatedly seen audits of party-political lotteries that have also used these methods.

The partisan lotteries are about transparency. Public benefit lotteries have, just as Mats Berglund himself pointed out, the good thing that they involve an opportunity to contribute to an activity. One buys a ticket to stand behind an organization that one thinks does important work. But when transparency fails and one does not know who is selling the ticket, because one has not linked the lottery with the party, then one has a problem. When this is discovered and scrutinized time and again but no change occurs, it is unfortunate that we ultimately need to resort to legislation to rectify the problem so that the individual is given the opportunity to decide for themselves what they want to spend their money on.

We have spoken big words about democracy, and I wonder if Mats Berglund thinks it is democratically correct to mislead lottery buyers and put citizens into debt with the help of aggressive marketing to finance political activities.

(Applause)

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank the Vice Chair of the Committee, Malin Danielsson from the Liberals, for the question.

I largely agree with Malin Danielsson. We are two social-liberal parties standing here – and I hope the Liberals still are – and we like individual freedom and put that freedom first.

My biggest objection in the matter is that one separates political parties from other non-profit organizations. I believe it is a dangerous path to take. I would like to ask the question that I asked Carl Nordblom earlier, namely whether the Liberals consider political parties to be non-profit. It is an important and central question. I think it is completely obvious that political parties are.

I agree with Malin Danielsson that transparency is important. We have clear motions to strengthen transparency, that it should be clear which organization one supports if one buys a ticket. Buying a ticket is primarily supporting an organization. Then there is the tension. Some may buy the tickets because they really want to win the table runner. I don't know myself what I would do with the table runner, the candlesticks, or whatever it is. But I might still buy a ticket if it were for something I truly believe in.

Why separate the public-benefit political activities from others? I agree that we should increase transparency for lottery purchases, but why not include other public-benefit organizations in the transparency?

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! We are still a social-liberal party, and we will continue to be that for about 100 years to come, if not more. We shall see what the future reveals.

Are the party-political lotteries also for the public good? Yes, of course. No surprises here. But does it imply a greater responsibility when a party conducts a lottery? Yes, I think so. Therefore, it is correct with a special piece of legislation.

Time and again, audits have shown that these lotteries are not being managed in a proper manner, in a way where parties that have power in the Riksdag, unlike other public benefit organizations, have conducted activities that I do not think align with democratic rules of the game. In that case, we need to resort to special legislation.

Does it mean that we want to make it harder for other non-profit organizations to conduct lottery activities at all? Definitely not. It is an incredibly important source of income for many organizations, and we shall protect that.

Does this mean that we want to get at a certain party from the Liberals' side? Definitely not. We would have thought the same if it had been a question of the Social Democrats, the Moderates, the Sweden Democrats, the Green Party, or ourselves. Then there probably would have been great internal criticism.

This is about the fact that one, when sitting in Sweden's Riksdag with the power that entails, must be a bit better at exercising that power also in the activities we have around our parties to finance them.

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

Mats Berglund (MP)

Madam Speaker! I did not receive many questions, but let me elaborate on the matter.

The central problem is that one separates public-benefit lotteries in associations and organizations from the party-political lotteries.

This is, naturally, about trust. If there is no trust, the public does not buy lottery tickets. Trust is damaged if it is abused. This applies to a political party, but it naturally also applies to other actors, large and small, who sell lottery tickets.

To return to the discussion that I had with Alexander Christiansson, we have large actors such as Postkodlotteriet. I do not know how large the budget is there. I also mentioned IOGT-NTO. There are many who sell lotteries for very large sums, for example Cancerfonden.

It cannot be about how much one sells for. At least it is not in the bill, but it is about wanting to separate political parties from other non-profit organizations. I think it is a major problem, and there is a danger ahead.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! I vote in favor of the bill.

We are debating party-political lotteries. Someone listening might think: "Do such things exist?" Someone might have bought lottery tickets and thought that the money went to a good cause and not seen that a portion went to a political party and its election campaign. The person thinks that the Breast Cancer Association or the National Association of the Visually Impaired receives the money, but not that a part of the sum is paid into the party coffers.

The Social Democrats' lottery activities have long been an important source of income, but their so-called Kombispel has come under fire. According to the Government Offices, the Social Democrats receive approximately 140 million kronor from Kombispel, calculated in gross revenue. The profit to the party from Kombispel has been approximately 30 million kronor per year.

What is problematic is not only that it has not been disclosed that lottery purchases support party-political activities, which is a major problem in itself and which we are now addressing through the proposal in the bill, but it is also problematic that the lotteries have been managed in a manner that is beyond all criticism. Since May 2022, Kombispel has been reported to the Consumer Agency 28 times. The majority of the reports concern telephone sales to elderly people who did not understand the terms of the agreement. Some of them were also suffering from dementia.

How did this actually happen? The Social Democrats hired, among other things, a telemarketing company in Barcelona, Effective Communication. According to Dagens Nyheter, the telemarketers were instructed to target the elderly, whom they called "old folks," and push until they gave in. These customers were considered the easiest to persuade. Another category was people with low income, who might be thought to dream of the big win. All of this is, of course, reprehensible, unethical, and immoral.

Madam Speaker! Let me say that it is not only in Social Democratic lotteries that aggressive methods are used. If one looks at the industry of lotteries and gambling, one sees that the marketing taking place is completely absurd. There are some of us here who have fought against aggressive marketing when it comes to gambling, and we have even advocated for a ban like the one that exists in Italy. I have been involved in the fight in that context.

Madam Speaker! Despite the changes in the entire gaming industry, this activity, which is catastrophic for so many families, continues with aggressive marketing, and neither TV4 nor the evening newspapers have anything against earning advertising money from an industry that turns over billions. This is shameful and sad at the same time.

According to information, as many as 900,000 people report that they have someone in their vicinity with gambling problems. We know that very many children are affected.

Madam Speaker! Back to the lottery activities, where there is a lure of the big win or at least that one will come out ahead. But how great is the chance of actually winning, and who are the losers? I have a few examples, which may contain some variation.

If you play Lotto, for example, the chance of getting 7 correct is 1 in 6.7 million. The chance of getting 6 correct and an additional number is 1 in 240,000. The chance of getting 4 correct, which gives between 20 and 30 kronor, is 1 in 110.

Another example is Triss. There, the chance of winning is approximately 1 in 6. If one buys six tickets, it becomes, if I have calculated correctly, 180 kronor, and then it is quite certain that one wins 30 kronor. The chance for what is called "månadsklöver," which gives 10,000 kronor a month for 30 years, is approximately 1 in 1.2 million.

What does this mean then? Yes, that the larger the profit is, the smaller the chance you have of winning. Smaller profits are significantly more common but rarely give more than what was wagered. And here it comes: Lotteries are designed to give the operator, i.e., the gambling company or the lottery company, the profit over time, not the player. In other words: Most who buy lotteries are losers.

Madam Speaker! It appears to me as very strange but also outrageous that the Social Democrats themselves do not realize the unethical and immoral nature of their party-political lottery activities. Instead, it is others who point out the absurdity of the behavior of letting telecommunications companies persuade confused "old people" because they are a vulnerable group. The goal was to get the "old people" to subscribe to lotteries, which in many cases resulted in the elderly ending up with the Enforcement Authority.

So, what is the bill about? Well, it is about legislative changes intended to be introduced on January 1st next year, which, among other things, aim to ensure clear information to consumers.

Transparency regarding who are the beneficiaries in the purchase of lotteries for a public benefit purpose is central. Transparency is therefore the central expression here. What the bill proposes is therefore welcome legislation that strengthens the information requirements for license holders whose lotteries are conducted for the benefit of party-political lotteries.

In addition, legislative changes are proposed which mean that lotteries provided by a licensee who is themselves a party-political organization, or who provides support to such, shall not be covered by the exemptions in the gambling regulation that apply to other public benefit lotteries. That is to say: Party-political lotteries will no longer be exempt from gambling tax or from the Gambling Act's credit ban and bonus limitation. We think it is good that these unjustified exemptions are removed.

The person who purchases a ticket shall be informed if support for party-political activities occurs in any part of the lottery activity. We will follow up on how the new legislation is applied, and if there is a need for further measures to increase transparency, we will ensure that such measures are taken.

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! I actually jumped when Roland Utbult began his speech by saying that there are those who go and buy a lottery ticket and believe that it will go towards doing something good. Does Roland Utbult mean that political parties do not do good? Does Roland Utbult disparage political parties that work for democracy and for social change and that organize people based on convictions?

Roland Utbult himself belongs to a party that has sprung from a popular movement. The Christian idea has carried forward the party that was subsequently formed. You have a number of side organizations and various popular movements out there that are directly linked to the Kristdemokraterna and which have historically carried forward the party.

For me, Roland Utbult is a true friend of civil society. To be a true friend of civil society is about safeguarding all its different parts. Political parties are a part of civil society.

To say that the person who buys a lottery ticket does not know if it is going towards doing something good is to underestimate political parties' actions for society and for democracy. I would like to give Roland Utbult a chance to explain what he means by this.

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Azadeh Rojhan, for the question!

I think perhaps the member is twisting the purpose and my thoughts a bit. If one buys a lottery ticket and believes it goes toward something good – I don't know how I should express it. The problem is that one does not know where it goes. One might believe it is something good. And that is certain, depending on how the opponent behaves and so on. But the concern is that one does not know that there is a party drawing in money from this. That is where the problem itself lies. It is that transparency we are calling for; it is central here.

I, in turn, would like to ask Member Azadeh Rojhan about this behavior. How does the Member view the fact that people tried to influence those they called "old-timers," some of whom were even demented, to buy lottery tickets and furthermore subscribe to the lotteries? Many of them actually ended up with the Enforcement Authority (Kronofogden). How does the Member view that?

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! Reprehensible – that is how I see it. That is also why we have taken our responsibility and urged everyone who considers themselves to have caused harm to contact Kombilotteriet so that they can take the appropriate measures.

Roland Utbult himself mentioned in his speech how gambling addiction in society has increased, how people are suffering. There we are talking about people who actually suffer to an extent that is deeply problematic today – and this also goes deep into the age groups.

I know that Roland Utbult places great value on people and has a big heart when it comes to safeguarding people's best interests. That is why I am so shocked that Roland Utbult was unable to convince his party to say yes when we submitted a proposition to introduce stricter requirements regarding marketing for gambling companies that conduct directly harmful gambling online, gambling for money.

If we are to protect the most vulnerable in society and prevent people from falling into gambling addiction and gambling abuse and incurring large debts from an early age, we must address this where the problem truly exists. And the problems exist where people gamble for money.

Are the Christian Democrats willing to take a new approach when it comes to tackling this, in order to also curb gambling addiction and gambling abuse in society?

(Applause)

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

Roland Utbult (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Azadeh Rojhan – it is always fun to debate with you. But it is also important that there are results from it all.

I think it is good that you have come to your senses and also admit the mistakes that have been made. It is the first time I hear it today; it is very good.

When it comes to gambling addiction and gambling abuse, I can promise that I will do what I can in the future. But I also want to say that there are a number of us who have fought against the aggressive marketing that exists. We worked very much together with Ardalan Shekarabi during the last parliamentary term to change this. It is a very difficult matter.

It is clear that we shall continue to work against aggressive marketing. I am concerned that neither TV4 nor the evening newspapers seem to care. Marketing that is completely absurd is being pumped out. I believe we should continue to counter this, for the benefit of those who have fallen into gambling addiction but above all to try to avoid people falling into gambling abuse, not least young people, who will now do so to a large extent. I believe we must work together to change this.

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin by clearly stating that a large party bears a large responsibility. The inaccuracies, the ambiguities, and the insufficient oversight that occurred in parts of Kombilotteriet's sales activities should never have happened. It is serious. We, as the license holder, have taken responsibility for this, and we take responsibility for it. We have been audited, criticized, and now also fined – all of this entirely justified. Now, a multitude of measures have been taken, and Kombilotteriet has undergone major changes. But these mistakes should never have happened. They should have been prevented.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that we are not here today to debate a new system for increased supervision. We are not discussing a general review of marketing, sales, or consumer protection in the gaming sector or for all public lotteries. No, we are unfortunately discussing a bill that has been designed with surgical precision to target the largest opposition party's funding.

First, Madam Speaker, I would like to take a step back and look at what public benefit lotteries actually are. Public benefit lotteries have for generations been a supporting part of the financing of Swedish association life. In everything from sports clubs to the temperance movement, the local heritage movement, and organizations such as the Children's Cancer Fund and several others, lottery sales have been used to finance public benefit purposes, that is, to provide a benefit to society.

Political parties are also associations. We have members and statutes. We have purposes that concern social utility, education, and organization. It has therefore been entirely possible for all parties to conduct lottery activities. Both Sverigedemokraterna and Moderaterna have actually tried.

If the government had truly wanted to review the rules of the game, it could have done so broadly and objectively. The government could have gathered the parties, the referral bodies, and civil society. The issue could have been handled with respect for the conditions of democracy and with respect for how we work in the Riksdag when we deliberate on important and major decisions.

Historically, there has been a broad political consensus here in the chamber that public benefit lotteries shall be treated equally. There has been a consensus that establishes that party political engagement is part of the voluntary Sweden. Therefore, parties are still defined as public benefit in other parts of the legislation.

But here, in the proposal that we are debating now, a distinction is made between association and association. And it is clear that behind this change lies a dangerous idea, namely that it is acceptable to use the power of legislation to silence opponents. It is not worthy of an open and democratic society. That is the path the government has now chosen to take, driven by the Sverigedemokraterna.

Madam Speaker! Unfortunately, it is not possible to draw any other conclusion. One only has to look back and see the various decisions that have been made here in the chamber. The same SD-led government that is now presenting this bill and claiming that the new rules are intended to protect consumers from being misled by marketing is the same government that previously said no to proposals that would have limited advertising for the most risky forms of gambling, such as online casinos. In a time when gambling addiction is increasing, especially among younger people, the Tidö parties have chosen instead to protect the interests of the large gambling companies.

Gambling addiction is one of our greatest public health problems. According to the Public Health Agency, 340,000 Swedes have gambling problems, of which 45,000 have a very serious gambling addiction – gambling addiction that is directly linked to gambling for money and online casinos.

When the S-led government submitted a bill in 2022 to strengthen gambling responsibility and introduce clearer requirements for moderation in gambling advertising, the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, and the other Tidö parties voted no. It is therefore incomprehensible to me how the government now claims to take responsibility for protecting consumers and vulnerable groups in society when the government considers online casinos, where millions are wagered, to be less dangerous than scratch cards where one usually wins a small amount.

I wish that everyone in the Tidö parties were as straight-backed and honest as Tobias Andersson from Sverigedemokraterna, because he at least says it as it is. He says it is about "turning off the tap" for the Socialdemokraterna and making the May Day trains shorter. Why do the Tidö parties otherwise choose to tax a non-profit lottery with scratch cards 14 times harder than a profit-driven online casino?

Madam Speaker! Several heavy referral bodies reason in the same way. The Faculty of Law at Uppsala University argues that the proposal may conflict with the freedom of association, as it in practice targets an individual party's ability to finance its activities.

Centrum för rättvisa points out the risk that the law violates the European Convention and refers to previous cases where similar laws were struck down in the European Court of Human Rights.

The Swedish Bar Association expresses concern that the law violates the principle of generally applicable legislation and that the government has not analyzed the constitutional risks.

Svalo, which organizes about twenty voluntary lotteries, warns that this creates a precedent that risks wiping out large parts of the funding for Swedish civil society, ranging from Cancerfonden to PRO.

I want to pause for a moment at just that concern that, among others, Svalo highlights. There is a clear pattern, a pattern where civil society in Sweden is gradually being pushed back by the political majority that now governs. Under the SD-led government, we have seen how study associations and organizations within environment, climate, peace, culture, folk education and other actors have had their funding significantly reduced or, in the worst cases, completely cut off.

We have seen how the government has completely undermined civil society's aid activities. We have seen how important actors in civil society have been publicly cast into suspicion, how their motives have been questioned and how their activities have been slandered. And we have heard the threats that organizations can lose their grants if they criticize the Tidö parties' policy.

It is a political line that recurs. A line where civic life is only tolerated as long as it stays within the lines. Civil society is conditioned on silence.

With this bill, it is the Social Democrats' turn. When laws are used to stifle funding and isolate critical voices, the boundaries of what is acceptable in a democracy are shifted. This is what we are debating here today.

Madam Speaker! In a democracy, ideas and ideologies meet. We Social Democrats are not afraid of ideological struggle. We meet our opponents in debates every day – about welfare, the labor market, climate, and justice. We believe that the voters are wise enough to see the difference between different choices and that they vote based on which future they believe in.

We want to meet in debates on how we can tackle gang crime, how we solve the housing crisis that is paralyzing the housing market and the construction industry, how we can simplify the economy for the households that have it toughest, the single mothers who are struggling, and how we can push back the skyrocketing and highest unemployment in the EU.

We want to win elections with our politics, with our answers to these challenges that Sweden faces today – not by silencing anyone else, but by convincing with our politics and our arguments.

I wish that the Tidö parties also thought so. I wish that they trusted their own ideas more than tactical tricks. Because when power is used to weaken the opposition and silence dissent, it does not radiate self-confidence but fear. And that is not pleasing. It is not democratic.

Madam Speaker! The Tidö parties can take our funding. It does not stop the people's movement that builds our party.

Our movement is not built on money. It is built on people, on conviction and on organization. It has been for over 130 years.

Our movement will not be silenced. Our fight for equality, our vision of solidarity and our belief in a democratic society remains.

It is possible to turn down the taps, but it is not possible to drain the commitment out of people. It is commitment that carries our party. It is commitment and the will for change that makes our demonstration trains kilometers long every May 1st. And it is nothing that this bill can change.

For that reason, I move for approval of reservation 1 and rejection of the bill in its entirety.

(Applause)

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats are now beating the big drum and saying that the government's bill is a threat to the rules of democracy and the labor movement's opportunity to organize. I am shocked! This is not true.

The reason why the Social Democrats are now pushing as they do and committing these transgressions in the debate is a sign of something else. It is a sign that one is ashamed and that one thinks this debate is embarrassing to conduct. Above all, I believe that one is stressed because one does not have the voters or the public opinion on one's side. The voters think that the Social Democrats' handling of the party-political lotteries is just as problematic as I do.

It is actually time that the Social Democrats' power dependency and need to exploit all possible parts of society for their own benefit now also becomes clear to the voters. Therefore, I wonder – and I pose the question to Member Rojhan: Why should the Social Democrats be exempted from the legislation?

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! That is true. It is actually a sign of something else. It is a sign of a fear, a fear of where we are headed somewhere in Sweden. It is a fear that our democracy is truly under threat. It is a fear when debate articles appear where it is said: It does not stop at the lotteries. We shall review other parts of civil society and the Social Democrats' – as a popular movement – connections to the rest of civil society. It is, moreover, civil society organizations that are completely independent.

So it is true that it is a sign of something else, and it is true that it is a sign of fear. But the fear is not about what Carl Nordblom wants to give the impression of. It is about the fear when it comes to our democracy and about whether we safeguard it.

It starts with us. We are a strong and large party, so we will manage. But what happens when this expands to more and more and more? Who is next in line?

We will be criticized for the mistakes we have made. They should never have happened in the first place. But we will also be scrutinized for the policy we pursue. Carl Nordblom mentioned that the voters think otherwise. The voters have said very clearly. In the latest opinion polls, they have clearly stated that our answers to the major societal challenges are the right answers. The government has not done enough, perhaps because it has been busy dealing with things such as trying to secure our funding while we have developed our policy and been out telling the voters about it.

(Applause)

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

Carl Nordblom (M)

Madam Speaker! Sometimes one can almost believe and feel that the Social Democrats are driven by only one thing: to take power in Sweden and to retain power in Sweden. It sometimes feels as if the politics becomes secondary.

The possibility of avoiding paying tax and strengthening one's own party coffers seems to be the focus for the Social Democrats as a party right now. We can all also note how great the focus is on the fact that one will now have to pay gambling tax on lottery winnings, which the Social Democrats raise in reservations and special statements. It is argued, therefore, that it could damage the economy and the operations of the party itself. I believe it is the politics, the arguments, and the debate that should benefit political parties, not whether one pays tax or not.

Madam Speaker! Imagine if the Social Democrats could have as much compassion and as much sympathy for the millions of Swedes who have been burdened with the world's highest tax burden over the decades. Those people whom you have burdened with the world's highest tax burden have suffered, worked, and fought for their money.

You have sold lottery tickets in an aggressive manner from the Spanish coast and from companies with links to gang criminals. That is the difference between hard-working Swedes and the Social Democratic Workers' Party. I wonder therefore: Why should just the Social Democrats not have to pay tax? You want millions of Swedes to do it.

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! It is true, Carl Nordblom, that the Social Democrats are driven by having power and retaining power. I believe it would have been a rejection of any party if one were not driven by that incentive. That is what all politics is about: to gain power, to get to implement one's policy, and to be involved in changing society in the direction that one thinks is best. Otherwise, one should not exist. It is, in some way, a justification for existence for every party that one wants power and wants to retain it.

That is what we want; that is correct. We believe, in fact, that we have the right answers for the major societal challenges. We believe that the arguments should benefit the parties. We believe that it is the political content that matters. That is why we are not looking for any other party's funding. We are looking to conduct political debates and meet you in the arguments that you put forward. We will continue to do that regardless of whether it concerns this proposition or not.

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Azadeh, for the speech!

The last thing I heard here was that one is not looking for other parties' financing. One hits oneself quite hard on the chest and stands with a great sense of self-righteousness and talks about having a very high level of debate and that it is the politics that should decide. One does not use dirty tricks and does not make things up from the Social Democrats' side.

I believe that a large proportion of people in this country perceive it to be the total opposite when they see how the Social Democrats behave. I am thinking in particular of how it was when it emerged that we were going to move forward with these regulatory proposals. Then I believe your party secretary Baudin went out and said: We will take revenge. We will find other ways through the business sector to hit the Tidö parties when it is our turn.

I believe, therefore, that one should be very careful with that rhetoric and not portray oneself as so humble when one belongs to a party that is well-known for frequently conducting a shameless policy.

It is actually a rotten system. And the Social Democrats were not aware of these shortcomings in their operations, linked to the party lotteries, now. This has been going on for a long time. Already in 2013, there were audits regarding this. But the Social Democrats are unable to do anything about it themselves. If that were the case, it would have been done a long time ago and this would not have been hidden and the same operations continued exactly as they have been done all the time.

It is said that this has been resolved and that people can contact Kombilotteriet. There is a wealth of testimonies from people who have tried exactly that, but they receive no answers. It becomes a hypocrisy.

Does the member not see the embarrassment in this? Does the member not see the shortcomings in that nothing has been done about this during all these years? It would have created significantly greater legitimacy for the Social Democrats as a party if they themselves had done something about this. And then we would have spared ourselves from having to do it.

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! Of course it would have been better if these mistakes had never occurred. Of course, there would have been greater legitimacy for us when we enter this debate. There is no question about that. It should not be discovered and then handled. It should not happen from the beginning. It is clear and distinct. It must be established. That is how it is.

But since we are on the subject of hypocrisy – that was the word Alexander Christiansson himself chose – and when we talk about transparency, I wonder about something. People talk about consumer responsibility – responsibility for the consumer – and about how people have been affected by the inaccuracies that Kombilotteriet has committed.

How is it that Alexander Christiansson did not have as clear a debate and as strong positions when we debated online casinos? How is it that the Sverigedemokraterna party secretary, Mattias Bäckström Johansson, thinks it is okay to own shares for at least 193,000 kronor in two online casino companies? These are companies that directly put people into debt because they develop gambling abuse and gambling addiction. How can it be okay, if we are now going to talk about consumer responsibility, which each of us here has? We should be able to stand tall and say: We shall not contribute to this negative development in society.

We have made a mistake. We take our responsibility. But is it okay, according to Alexander Christiansson, that there are members of the Riksdag, in this chamber, who themselves own shares in gambling companies that drive gambling abuse and gambling addiction? Then you come here and vote no to stricter rules for marketing for just those companies. Is it hypocrisy or not?

(Applause)

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

Alexander Christiansson (SD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Azadeh Rojhan, for the questions and perhaps also for the answers!

Is it reasonable for members of Parliament to own shares in private commercial companies? Yes, I still think it is. I do not think it is that strange. Consumer protection is another discussion, and I stand behind the fact that there are major problems when it comes to commercial actors' casino activities and how we as politicians should step in and regulate and protect. There we may have different opinions, but fundamentally it is clear that the state has a great responsibility to regulate aggressive marketing in various ways.

Back to the question: Yesterday in the party leaders' debate, the Prime Minister asked you, party leader Magdalena Andersson, a question linked to all these people who have been severely affected by your own activities, and since that is what I am asking questions about, perhaps we should stick to that now. Magdalena Andersson could not bring herself to apologize to all those people who have been affected. From the Social Democrats, they have received the message "Contact us! Contact Kombilotteriet, and we will rectify everything!", but they receive no answers and no help.

Can Azadeh Rojhan apologize to all these people for what the Social Democrats have inflicted upon them?

(Applause)

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

Azadeh Rojhan (S)

Madam Speaker! In the same way as Alexander Christiansson does not want to talk about the party secretary who has large investments in large public limited companies and considers it not to be a debate or issue concerning what we are discussing here, I do not think that I, as an individual and a single member of the Social Democrats, can take responsibility for the inaccuracies that Kombilotteriet and Kombispel in general have committed.

On the other hand, I stand here upright and say that it is wrong that these mistakes have been made. It is wrong that we stand here today and even need to debate these issues. But the fact is that we are not actually debating oversight, stricter requirements, and how we can strengthen consumer protection. We are debating none of that. We are debating only how we can choke off the largest opposition party's funding, and the arguments for that are the same as those we used when we wanted to stop the large gambling companies' opportunities to reach children and young people in order to prevent more from falling into gambling abuse and gambling addiction and becoming indebted. But then you said no.

What you are doing right now is fake morality. It is fake morality all the way through, because if there were morality, the same morality should apply in all contexts. There should be a common thread, and I miss the common thread in the actions of the Tidö parties. This is about only one single thing, and I actually think it is a pity that the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna, as three strong, statesmanlike parties, do not understand that but allow themselves to be caught by the Sverigedemokraterna in this. It is actually deeply regrettable.

(Applause)

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I was reminded of the expression "the best defense is a good offense." It is a somewhat heated and wonderful debate here today.

To lower the tone a bit, I thought I would tell about the first time I won in a lottery. It was at the lottery association's Christmas bazaar at Brooktorpsgården in Halmstad. It is an annual tradition to have a Christmas bazaar there in connection with the Christmas signage.

I think I was maybe eight years old and received one of those tickets, you know, the ones you roll up. I won the grand prize and was very happy. The grand prize was a crate of canned mushrooms. It wasn't exactly like winning a giant chocolate box at the fair, but I still walked away from there and was very proud of these mushrooms, even if I, as an eight-year-old, perhaps didn't think it was the most fun prize.

So, 40 years later, I am still glad that there are organizations that understood that thing about preparedness long before it became a topic on everyone's lips. The Lotten we bought there at the Christmas bazaar, and which gave the flap with the canned button mushrooms, was not bought because we wanted those canned button mushrooms, but because we wanted to support the local Lottakår and their important work.

This is one of the major differences between public benefit lotteries and other commercial lotteries: One buys the lottery ticket in support of the organization.

Madam Speaker! Lotteries have a long history in our society. Already during the 1700s, lotteries were used to finance public projects such as building bridges, libraries, and schools. The idea was, and still is, quite simple: voluntary contributions in the form of games where the surplus goes to something good. One of the most prominent examples is the state lottery which was established in the 1770s. The first drawing took place in 1773, and the proceeds went, among other things, to Gustav II Adolf's statue, which stands not so far from here. Had it been a liberal lottery, the money might have gone to something other than a royal statue. But this is history.

Madam Speaker! In modern times, public benefit lotteries have continued to play an important role for civil society. The sports movement, the scouts, and the temperance movement – the list is very long of organizations that have been able to grow and operate thanks to revenues from lotteries. It is good and strengthens voluntary engagement. As a Liberal, I support it wholeheartedly. With children in sports, the children, or perhaps more commonly I, sell lotteries at regular intervals. We are always very careful to state that it is in support of the voluntary sports club and that the money goes to the team fund so that everyone can participate in the cup that is to be played.

The reason why we are clear about it is obvious. Many might never have even bought a ticket if it weren't to support the local sports club. The whole point with public benefit lotteries is that they are sold for the benefit of something.

Therefore, I am quite surprised that we now need to legislate that it must be stated who receives the surplus of a public benefit lottery when it is sold by a political party. It should be inherent in the nature of the matter that one wants to boast about it, that it is the selling point. Otherwise, it is like any other commercial lottery.

But obviously, it is not natural for some of those who run party-political lotteries. A while ago, I saw an advertisement on social media. I had a feeling that the advertisement was from one of the lotteries that we are debating here today and where the Social Democrats were the beneficiaries, but I wasn't quite sure. I therefore went into the advertisement and scrolled and scrolled and scrolled. Nowhere in the advertisement did I find who the beneficiary was. Only after a good deal of searching on the website did I find the information.

Madam Speaker! What happens when a political party, a power-bearing organ in our democratic system, uses lotteries to finance its activities but does so without it being clearly apparent who is behind the lottery? When a person buys a ticket without knowing that they are actually contributing to a party, we have actually crossed a line. It is about transparency, about clear labeling, and about every citizen being able to make an informed choice. That is, after all, how we build trust and confidence in politics, civil society, and our entire democratic system.

As a liberal, I start from the individual's right to make their own decisions. But in order to be able to do that, knowledge, openness, and honesty are needed. If I buy a ticket at the lottery association's Christmas bazaar, it is clear where the money goes. If I play the chocolate wheel at the amusement park, it is clear that it goes to a commercial enterprise. But if I buy a ticket in one of the A-lotteries, it is very difficult to find out that I am simultaneously supporting a party, whether I want to or not.

It can never be reasonable for parties to hide their funding behind company names that do not directly signal political affiliation. It can never be in line with liberal values to mislead people for the purpose of making money. It is unethical, and it damages trust in our democracy and our democratic system when a party handles lotteries in this way.

We must be able to demand from everyone who runs lotteries with a political purpose that they disclose where the money goes. It should appear on the lottery ticket and in the advertising. It is a fairly small change, but it is of great principle importance. We should not have to legislate. It should have been obvious.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! I actually share a similar experience to the one Malin Danielsson described. I remember when I was seven years old, I won a knife sharpener in a lottery. I was very happy, even though I had no idea what I was going to do with that machine. Lotteries are exciting. We can agree on that.

What I am reflecting on is the interest in and the protection of consumers' rights. We agree that it is very important when one buys a lottery ticket or another product that one understands where the profit goes.

Vänsterpartiet has a different proposal today for the Riksdag to take a position on. We want to open up for more information to be provided than what the government proposes. Regardless of whether it is a party, an association, or a private company that operates lotteries and games, it shall be clear who is the beneficiary and who will get to share in the profit.

I wonder why the Liberals could not stand behind the fact that it is not only when parties have lotteries, but also when other actors sell games that this information could reach the consumers. That proposal is, therefore, also on the table today.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I think this is about the partisan lotteries. We are legislating regarding them. I believe we need to return to many contexts regarding lottery activities in general. Today's debate has been about gambling activities, lotteries, and how vulnerable many people are. They might be tricked into subscribing to lotteries against their will and so on.

I believe that we need to do much more. Transparency is always good. I believe that we need to find a good balance, not least for our public utility organizations in general, that is, our non-profit civil society. It is about being able to take advantage of lottery activities and having a reasonable amount of requirements on how one should report and what needs to be presented for it to be a good way to raise money.

With that said, it is reasonable to place greater demands on political parties. It is a greater commitment to support a party than to support, for example, the lottery pool or the lottery the member won on. Therefore, I think it is sensible to have separate legislation. But the Liberals are, of course, open to having transparency in as many different issues as possible and are happy to return to that at a later time.

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

Vasiliki Tsouplaki (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Danielsson, for the answer!

I think that one of the reasons for the high tone in today's debate is the discussion about the government's purpose. One argues in a certain way. One wants to protect consumers. One wants the public to know where the money goes. But one does not see that that interest actually applies broadly. One only points out the party-political lotteries. That is why we are so critical on the opposition side. We do not think that the general interest is being considered.

We simply become a bit suspicious when we see that it is only the Social Democrats who will end up suffering with this reform. It would have been entirely possible to design broader legislation, if one is seeking the transparency that Malin Danielsson highlights. It would also have been entirely possible, in hindsight, to stand behind proposals from the opposition that benefit the consumer.

During this mandate period, the government has pursued a consumer-hostile policy by removing the support for the organization Sveriges Konsumenter, which one can turn to if one has ended up in trouble due to incorrect sales methods or other unprofessional sales from private companies or associations. In that case, one can turn to one of their consumer associations.

The government has therefore removed all state support for the organization Sveriges Konsumenter, which represents us consumers at the EU level. When it comes to different types of referral responses, they are a very important body for monitoring consumers' interests. That support has been removed by the government. I want to know why, if it is as Malin Danielsson says, that one actually wants the best for the consumers.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Vasiliki Tsouplaki, for the question!

I can assure the members that there is no need to be suspicious. There is no need to be worried. This is not about a single party, even if the party in question would like the sun to revolve around that specific party. This is about transparency. The reason that legislation has emerged in this matter is that the problems have been uncovered primarily in the party-political lotteries. It has not been a problem among the public utility lotteries to the same extent.

This has been reviewed time and again. I read a review from 2017 in Dagens Nyheter the other day. I believe it was approximately 9,000 people who had come to the Enforcement Authority because of subscription lotteries offered within the framework of this party-political lottery. Even though it has emerged several times in reviews, it has not been addressed. In that case, it is legislation we have to resort to. That is why we are working on this today.

I think, just as I said in the exchange with Mats Berglund, that the responsibility is significantly greater for us parties than it can be for civil society as a whole. It is we who hold power. It is we who get to legislate. It is we who can create opportunities for and also impose limitations on this. In this situation, after all these years of scrutiny of the A-lotteries and other party-political lotteries, we have reached the limit where legislation was needed.

The consumer issue is incredibly important. I believe we need to make different efforts to create better conditions for consumer power. Individual individuals should have the power to choose and reject things. Regarding the support for Sveriges Konsumenter, I have no answer at this stage but will gladly return at another occasion when we discuss consumer issues.

(Applause)

(cont. § 7)

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