Response to interpellation 2022/23:346 on lottery sales

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Tobias Andersson has asked me what measures the government intends to take to increase transparency regarding lottery sales.

As Tobias Andersson notes, the government and the Sweden Democrats have agreed to review the regulations for party-political lotteries through an inquiry. We want to do this because transparency and oversight are important in a democratic society.

Intensive work is currently underway within the Government Offices to develop a terms of reference for the investigation in question. The work of appointing an investigation is not yet completed, and the government cannot precede the results of the investigation that will be tasked to look into the issue.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The Government and the Sweden Democrats have, as stated, agreed to develop a proposal for a ban on party-political lotteries. An inquiry is now to be appointed with the mandate to produce one or more concrete legislative proposals.

In his response to my interpellation, Niklas Wykman mentions how the work on the design of the assignment is ongoing in the Government Offices. Very well, and that is something we can return to.

I would, however, like to begin by framing and describing the background to today's debate, which I touched upon in the interpellation text.

The background is that the Social Democrats have rigged the system to create advantages for their own lottery sales. In this way, unlike a commercial actor in the gambling market, they have been able to sell lottery tickets on credit to gambling addicts, poor pensioners, and those already in debt. This has been able to occur completely without reasonable requirements for customer knowledge and furthermore without gambling tax. This activity also appears to have taken place through aggressive marketing towards the vulnerable in society.

To have a membership lottery or openly sell lottery tickets to sympathizers may be considered one thing, which, for example, the government's party Moderaterna has done. But the allegations that poor pensioners were tricked into buying lottery tickets on credit without even knowing that the money was going to the Socialdemokraterna is a completely different matter. There are undoubtedly many reasons why this activity needs to be investigated and stopped; primarily, from a transparency perspective, it is much needed that political parties cannot bypass the rules for party donations by selling lottery tickets.

In practice, today, special interests of various kinds can choose to buy lotteries from the Socialdemokraterna and thereby avoid public scrutiny of the party donation. If someone, on the other hand, wanted to finance my or Niklas Wykmans party, this would become public. It could be scrutinized. One would have had to be open about this donation, but that does not need to be the case if one wants to give the same financial support to the Socialdemokraterna. In that case, it is sufficient to systematically buy lotteries.

Hopefully, the investigation can come forward with well-considered proposals on how these obvious problems can be solved. While awaiting the investigation, it is important that the issue is debated and discussed in order to highlight the problems that the investigation aims to combat, just as we are doing now.

It is good that the government is now going to proceed with this investigation in order to be able to close the loopholes in the system that the Social Democrats have created for themselves. I and many others look forward to taking part in the completed investigation directives. My question, Mr. Speaker, is whether Niklas Wykman can be a bit more concrete about approximately when these can be expected.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! Let me begin by answering the member's question very concretely. The answer is no; no specific date will be given to Tobias Andersson or anyone else today. However, the settlement that exists will be completed, and there is an intensive effort underway in the Government Offices to prepare the documentation required to appoint this inquiry.

Let me then, Mr. Speaker, fully concur with what Tobias Andersson says regarding Sweden's elderly. Regardless of who is selling, it is obviously indecent if or when elderly people are exploited. Here we see that the older generation is being hit very hard, for example, by frauds. Everyone who operates on the market, regardless of what one sells, shall show respect for Sweden's elderly. That is an absolute conviction from my side. These are people who have worked and struggled hard in their lives, and they should not be exploited – regardless of whether it concerns criminal activity or fundamentally legal activity but with over-selling and other such things. I believe that should be a compass and a value for everyone in the entire society.

This question, however, is about lotteries and party-political lotteries in a broader sense. Let me then begin by agreeing with what Tobias Andersson says: In a democracy, and in the Swedish democracy, they must be characterized by oversight and transparency. These should be guiding words for our Swedish democracy. One must know where a party's money comes from and how much money the political parties have.

By insight and transparency, I also mean that the person who gives money to a political party should be aware of it. It should, of course, be completely okay to give money and make donations to political parties according to the existing regulations, but the person who gives money to a political party should be aware that they are doing so and that they are taking a political stance with their decision. It is an important part of openness and transparency in a democratic society.

There are a number of exceptions that, among other things, affect party-political lotteries.

One is exempt from the credit ban. That is, one is allowed to sell lottery tickets on credit, which other lotteries and game organizers are not allowed to do.

One is exempt from bonus limitations. That is to say, one is allowed to lure customers in a way that other commercial actors are not allowed to.

One is exempt from paying tax. One does not, therefore, need to contribute to the common good in the same way as other game operators need to do.

One is also exempt regarding registration and rules for money laundering in such a way that one does not need to contribute to this in the same way as other commercial actors need to do.

One is also not covered, even if it is on a somewhat different basis, by the requirement for written form that exists in telemarketing.

Overall, there are many laws and regulations that one does not need to comply with if one conducts this type of lottery. It is clear that it creates a number of question marks; I fully agree with that.

One also ends up, to some extent, in double chairs when one is both an actor selling on a market and simultaneously a politician who is to regulate this. It raises many questions, for example, whether one can commission persons to be involved in the lottery while simultaneously having important assignments in the state. Does it affect the regulatory work? Does it cause one to take some kind of consideration that one otherwise would not have taken? It obviously raises those types of questions. Therefore, it is important that we look at this.

Former Finance Minister Kjell-Olof Feldt stated the following a few years ago: "The fact that a mass movement, the Social Democratic Party, has been given access to the market while all others are excluded provides grounds for another interpretation that should be embarrassing for the Social Democratic government - that one is exploiting the state's power to favor one's own party-political interests." This was written by the Social Democrat Kjell-Olof Feldt in DN Debatt.

There are questions here that need to be answered. Hence the investigation that is to be appointed.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the answer and the account of the ongoing work.

I believe it is difficult to take in the nuance that Niklas Wykman provides and the account of all the exceptions that the Social Democrats have created for their own activities in order to be able to maximize their profit and then use it in election campaigns against my party or against Niklas Wykman's party.

For those who take part in that account and understand in detail all the rules that one is exempted from as a Social Democratic actor in this market, I believe it is difficult to see the government's ambition to review this as anything other than well-intentioned and sound, regardless of government and party affiliation.

Despite this, the Social Democrats, in their response to this, have chosen to attack instead of defend. Instead of acknowledging the shortcomings that exist in the system and instead of apologizing for the activities they have conducted and created conditions for, they have gone on the offensive.

The criticism against the government base was not long in coming. Furthermore, it had no limits whatsoever. The poorly hidden authoritarian traits quickly appeared among the Social Democrats. The first thing said was that this constitutes a threat to democracy. That the government now considers that the Social Democrats should no longer be allowed to sell lottery tickets to those in debt, to poor pensioners, and to gambling addicts, or drive thousands to the Enforcement Authority, is to silence the opposition, not to conduct a sound policy. Sweden will become like Hungary. We have a regime that has taken power, and now it is going to silence the opposition. It was the rhetoric that the Social Democrats used when it became common knowledge that an investigation will look into these occurrences.

Mr. Speaker! It is a dangerous rhetoric, in my opinion. I would like to turn the debate toward what actually constitutes problematic conduct when holding government power.

If Orbán's government in Hungary, to stick to the social democratic example, had acted as the Social Democrats did in Sweden to secure their own funding, the Social Democrats—rightly so—would have shouted loudly. Imagine if Orbán in Hungary had rigged the system so that it was precisely his party's sale of lotteries that was exempt from the credit ban and so that his party could sell lotteries without paying tax and did not need to have transparency in its party funding and if he ensured the possibilities for interest organizations and other actors to finance his party through the back door by purchasing lotteries! Imagine if Orbán ensured that precisely his party's lottery sales were not covered by know-your-customer requirements etcetera! Then the criticism against Orbán in Hungary would guaranteed have been strong from the Social Democrats.

Now, instead, one has acquired these advantages at home in Sweden, and then one refuses to take responsibility for it. I think it is important to emphasize this, because I am convinced that it is a major source of inspiration for authoritarian forces around the world how the Social Democrats have acted in government in Sweden to secure funding and support for their party. Niklas Wykman touched upon parts of this.

Against the background of this description, I would like to ask Niklas Wykman how he views the Social Democrats' criticism and claim that the government now intends to silence the opposition and thereby threaten democracy.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, for the sake of clarity, we must establish that the rules that exist do not apply only to the Social Democrats but to all political parties. The Social Democrats have a larger political lottery, but the rules are nonetheless the same for everyone. I think that should be established before it is established that there can still be a great deal of criticism.

One example is, as mentioned, the article Kjell-Olof Feldt wrote in DN Debatt. I believe it was the case that a Social Democratic government granted a Social Democratic lottery a permit but not the Children's Cancer Fund. Everyone can read the article to see exactly how it stood. Kjell-Olof Feldt is a former Social Democratic Finance Minister and a heavy representative with great insight into both the Swedish state and Social Democracy, and when he points out such things, it is time to take those types of reflections further.

Mr. Speaker! Politics should be about identifying societal problems and then proposing and implementing solutions to these problems so that we who live in this country, and hopefully others as well, can have it better. In this, I believe that people should address each other with respect, moderation, and balance. Expressions that have appeared in the discussion about the regime and other things are unfortunate and create poor conditions for finding solutions to problems. It is also deeply unworthy. A worthy person who represents Swedish democracy does not express themselves that way about democratically elected political opponents and a democratically elected government. It is not good to do so. But even talented people make mistakes and then correct them.

In the media, headlines such as "Secret scripts to trick pensioners into lottery tickets" and "Social Democrats make million-dollar profits on those in debt" have appeared in Expressen, and "Social Democrats sell lottery tickets on credit to those in debt and drive thousands to the Enforcement Authority" in Dagens Nyheter. But fundamentally, the issue is not about this, but, as Tobias Andersson says, that in a democracy it is reasonable to demand openness, transparency, and oversight.

People should know where a party's money comes from, and they should also, of course, know if they are contributing to a political party's activities. That is not fully the case today, but from a moral standpoint, one could think that these are simple principles that all parties should be able to stand behind. The parties should be able to report what their revenues come from, and those who provide the revenues should reasonably be aware that they are financing a party-political activity. It is completely reasonable.

Where do the funds come from? Are those who provide the money aware of this? Does the regulation affect the legislative work if one sits in dual chairs, i.e., is both a major actor in a market and is to set the rules of the game for it? Is this reasonable?

Once again: Swedish democracy should be characterized by oversight and transparency. In the long run, it builds trust.

I do not think one should resort to this type of rhetoric when describing one's political opponents. Democracy and Sweden only lose from it.

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

Tobias Andersson (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Niklas Wykman again for the answer.

In the Expressen article Niklas Wykman mentions, it is described how a script has been used by those who have sold the Social Democratic lottery tickets. Among other things, the following can be read in the script: "No, I understand, my grandmother is what you call a poor pensioner and she has explained that you need to turn over every single krona these days but I mean, now when it's about a measly 99 kronor - that's not even a bun and coffee at Pressbyrån today." Then the script continues.

I believe that one indeed gets a bun and coffee at Pressbyrån for 99 kronor, but that is not what I intend to focus on. This is, therefore, what is used by the sellers of these lotteries in dialogue with people who have previously in the conversation described that their finances are weak and that they are old and live on a low pension. The sellers, therefore, do not let them go and call the next potential customer instead, but try to hammer home the need to obtain this monthly subscription to lotteries.

The company that sold these tickets did so well that the Social Democrats' company chose to reward the sellers with holiday trips and alcohol dinners, which Expressen has written about.

Mr. Speaker! I believe it is difficult not to be upset when one takes part of this, and that is also why the debate about the investigation has flared up to such an extent and perhaps has not always been completely nuanced. But just as Niklas Wykman describes, it is fundamentally not about convicting the Social Democrats, even if that may become a consequence of this. In my opinion, we have ethical reasons to act in this area because we see that transparency is lacking and the vulnerable in society are being exploited. It is this that we want to put a stop to in the first instance, not for the Social Democrats. But now it happens to be just they who have engaged in this.

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

Statsrådet Niklas Wykman (M)

Mr. Speaker! This issue concerns many very difficult matters. It is about party financing, which is not just anything in a democracy. Where a party's money comes from and how it is used must be characterized by oversight and transparency. It is also about gambling and betting, which is not just any market. We do not consider it to be that either, and therefore there are strict rules for actors in this market. Among other things, they need to show consideration for their customers. Governments of different colors have also come to the chamber with proposals to protect consumers in this market in various ways.

If one combines party financing and gambling and betting, which are individually sensitive and need to be scrutinized carefully, the risk is that the collective mass of problems or the moral considerations become even greater. In that case, one obviously needs to go to the bottom of how this should look.

I want to once again distance myself from all types of superiority, harsh judgments, talk of regimes and such. It fundamentally undermines democracy to behave in this way. We shall behave decently towards one another in all debates and discussions. We may, of course, speak as it is and scrutinize one another, but we shall not do this to Swedish democracy. There shall be order and decency, and we shall be polite towards one another.

Mr. Speaker! Let me conclude with the core message in this: insight and transparency. A strong and vital democracy and a strong citizen influence are fundamentally built on the fact that we can demand accountability, that we know where the money comes from and that the parties finance themselves in fair ways.

Finally, the gambling market must be characterized by strong consumer protection. For example, we must not trick vulnerable pensioners in Sweden into expenses they actually cannot afford.

The interpellations debate was hereby concluded.

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