Response to interpellation 2022/23:6 on anonymous donations to the parties
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
1 M looks forward to the Kammarkollegiet's decision to clarify the application of the regulatory framework and consider a review 1. 2 M considers that the questions regarding transparency are not new but have been handled by the parties themselves and in a parliamentary committee 2. 3 M emphasizes that the parties have cooperated closely and that the voters' trust guides 3. 3 M wants to wait for the supervision to see if the rules are sufficient or need to be adjusted 3. 4 M wants the rules to be so clear that it is easy for both donors and recipients to do the right thing 4. 4 M considers that the current legislation was tabled by S and MP 4. 4 M considers it extremely important to strive for the same broad parliamentary unity in the future as was had behind the current legislation 4. 4 M notes that if the regulatory framework is perceived to need reconsideration, they will return to the questions 4.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Märta Stenevi has asked me if I intend to take any initiatives to tighten the legislation on party donations.
The current law on transparency in party funding was adopted in 2018 and is based on proposals submitted by a parliamentary committee. The law aims to create further increased transparency and involves, among other things, expanded requirements for revenue reporting and a ban on receiving anonymous contributions over a certain value. Although GRECO saw room for further improvements, the Swedish legislation was judged to represent important steps towards increased transparency regarding party funding.
After Kalla fakta's review earlier this autumn, Kammarkollegiet has initiated supervisory cases. I look forward to receiving Kammarkollegiet's decisions. The decisions may contribute to clarifying how the regulatory framework should be applied and also whether there may be reason to consider a review of the regulatory framework.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Madam Speaker! It is forbidden for parties to receive anonymous contributions over a certain amount. The legislation was introduced to create more transparency and to prevent corruption, so that, for example, mining companies cannot pump money into parties that love mines without the people knowing, so that school corporations cannot pump money into parties to keep the profit carousel running at the expense of the children without the people knowing, or so that far-right organizations cannot pump money into parties so that they can implement racist proposals without the people knowing.
The Swedish people have the right to know which forces the parties are dependent on for their funding and whose agenda they are driving. Therefore, the contributions shall be reported openly. The influence of the money shall be able to be scrutinized. And on paper, we are also in agreement on this.
But in the heat of the election campaign, the temptation became too great. TV4's Kalla fakta revealed that five of the Riksdag's eight parties actively tried to circumvent the law. For this investigation, the journalists also received the Stora journalistpriset in the category of revelation of the year. That says a lot about the explosive power of this issue. They identified no fewer than eight methods that the parties use. The Christian Democrats suggest that one could basically give 238 kronor per day for four years without there being any accounting of it at all. The Moderates suggested that a businessman should be involved and with 350,000 kronor co-finance an activity that is not directly linked to the Moderates but which does very great good for the party. The Liberals suggested various front-man setups and ensured that the agreement would not be traceable to the party. A collection foundation with close links to the Sweden Democrats has received over 5 million kronor in just anonymous contributions. The Social Democrats pick freely from a mixed bag of lotteries, front-men, and foundations.
This is extremely serious. It cannot go on like this in Sweden.
The Riksdag has passed a law intended to prevent corruption. Subsequently, five of the Riksdag's eight parties use different creative methods to circumvent this legislation.
We must also remember that Kalla fakta did not call anyone and offer anonymous contributions, but rather contacted high-ranking party representatives in an attempt to circumvent the law. It is, to say the least, astonishing, and it must come to an end. The voters deserve, Madam Speaker, to know whose pockets the parties are in.
Madam Speaker! My follow-up question to Minister Strömmer is therefore: Does he not see, in light of this, that there is already reason for the government to tighten the legislation and thereby also put an end to the cheating and the attempts to circumvent the legislation?
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! Märta Stenevi actually highlights all the questions that have in different ways been the subject of preparation regarding the legislation that exists today. If one goes back, one can see that these questions have first been handled by the parties themselves - if one goes really far back in time - with voluntary agreements between parties. Historically, the parties have wanted this to be handled outside the framework of legislation because they have felt that there have also been strong freedom of association interests to protect here.
Since then, for good reason, the public's demand for insight and transparency has grown in society at large but also in this area. This has resulted in the parties, together in a couple of different rounds, having worked on the regulatory frameworks that shall surround donations to parties. The latest work was carried out just a few years ago in a parliamentary committee. It led to the legislation and the rules that apply today and which were tabled in the Riksdag in the autumn of 2017 and decided in 2018. It was tabled by the government that Miljöpartiet was also a part of, i.e., the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet together.
My perception is that for the first time, it can now be said that a supervision is taking place regarding how several of these parts of the regulatory framework are used in practice. But I also imagine that it will also show whether it gives us in this chamber reason to jointly review the existing regulatory frameworks. I think it is wise to await the supervision that is now taking place and which, together with the media scrutiny that has occurred, will cast a good light on these issues.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Madam Speaker! Oversight is important, but it is still the government that bears the legislative responsibility. Openness and transparency are absolutely crucial for a strong democracy, while secrecy and corruption break it down. It must be possible for the voters to hold us, the holders of power, accountable. Otherwise, we do not deserve the power that has been given to us. Without insight, it becomes impossible to demand accountability.
The Council of Europe's anti-corruption unit, GRECO, criticized the law on transparency in party funding already four years ago and warned that it is far too easy to circumvent. It has also turned out that they were right in this criticism.
We in Miljöpartiet already warned about this before the law was introduced. We demanded that gifts should not be able to be divided into many small amounts that ultimately are gigantic and still escape scrutiny. We also demanded that side organizations should not be able to be used as a cover. At that time, the right-wing parties turned a deaf ear, but today it is time to listen and tackle this problem.
Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet demands that the government immediately appoint an inquiry into how we plug the holes in the laws. We want to prevent frontmen, intermediaries and dissemination methods, and we also want to review the criminal law part. It must feel proper when one, as a party, tries to make money through obfuscation and corruption.
Madam Speaker! There is also more we can do to strengthen transparency. An active exchange of knowledge between different societal actors is valuable for democracy. The dialogue between politicians and civil society and between academia and the business sector is both valuable for change and important to safeguard, but which actors we speak with should not be secret.
In recent years, the market for public affairs companies - what we often call lobbyists - has grown, while transparency rules are lacking. This hinders the possibilities to scrutinize decision-making processes and questionable contacts. We need to learn from Kalla Fakta's revelation and take the need for transparency seriously. We need to take seriously that the Swedish people must be given more insight into what happens behind the scenes and who is influencing the political decisions.
Madam Speaker! The Green Party therefore wants to establish a transparency register for lobbyists who engage in dialogue with Members of Parliament and employees at party offices and agencies. We are therefore presenting two concrete proposals in connection with the general motion period. For the first: Tighten the law on transparency in the financing of parties! For the second: Introduce a transparency register!
Madam Speaker! It is my and the Green Party's hope that all the parties in the Riksdag, including the Minister's Moderaterna, will stand behind these motions so that we close the loopholes in the laws. I would therefore like to hear how the Minister stands regarding the Green Party's proposal to tighten the legislation in this way. It is about increasing democracy, increasing transparency, and reducing the risk of corruption and irregularities.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! We agree on the value of transparency and oversight, not least if we stick to the issue that has been highlighted by the interpellation we are now debating, namely the question of party donations. Over time, the parties have cooperated very closely with one another.
What Märta Stenevi highlights is entirely correct, that several of the issues that were actualized in Kalla f were also subjects of discussion in connection with the adoption of the current legislation. This naturally also means that the issues are not new. Trade-offs were made both in the parliamentary committee that preceded the legislation and in the bill that Miljöpartiet, together with Socialdemokraterna, laid before the Riksdag. The issues are therefore not new.
What we can do now, I understand, is to await the supervision regarding how these rules have been applied in practice. The supervision can provide guidance and show whether the rules themselves are sufficient and work well as they are or also, which is not entirely unlikely, shed light on the issue in such a way that it becomes clear that the rules need to be adjusted in various respects.
If one adds up the interaction between the supervision from the authority responsible for the supervision, the media scrutiny, and the political debate on the issues, one sees that it also serves an important transparency interest. If I do not remember entirely incorrectly, it states in the bill that it is ultimately the voters' trust that governs – that the voters ultimately decide whether the parties have the voters' trust or not in these parts. When it comes to that question, I am open to what the supervision yields, and I am sure that we will have reason to return to the issues after that.
The second question that Märta Stenevi raises concerns, in simplified terms, a lobbyist register, i.e., whether there should be a list of various companies, organizations, or others who approach politicians. For my personal part, I am quite open on that question. We will have to see how it will be handled in the Riksdag. I do, however, think that it highlights the trade-off that exists in all such issues. On one hand, there is a legitimate democratic interest in protecting confidential conversations between citizens, between citizens and politicians, and between voluntary association life and politicians. It is not exactly a completely black-and-white scale here. On the other hand, there is a legitimate expectation from the citizens to be able to have insight into that type of exchange, if we can call it that, which can influence political decision-making.
Exactly how that balance should look, I cannot answer on the fly – the question just came here and now – but that it has its principled interest, I do not think there is any doubt about.
Märta Stenevi (MP)
Madam Speaker! I think it is interesting that Minister Strömmer highlights precisely the voters' trust, because it will be very difficult for the voters to determine whether they can give a party their trust if the parties cannot report what and who influences their decisions.
Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet will always fight corruption and stand up for an open, transparent and democratic Sweden. The Swedish people deserve to know who provides contributions to the parties that govern the country. The legislation on transparency in the parties' financing must be tightened, and a transparency register must be introduced.
Current legislation clearly opens up for a whole host of creative arrangements that some parties have also been quick to exploit, despite the intentions of the legislation they have backed. Cold facts have shown that five out of eight parties have actively worked to mislead the voters - actively! Their creative arrangements have left the field free for, for example, foreign school groups, far-right groups, or mining companies to pump money into the parties without oversight from the voters.
We do not, of course, know which anonymous contributions the parties have received. We also do not know who is behind them or why. What we do know, however, is that five parties have developed methods to keep just that information secret, so that the voters cannot see where the money comes from. Everyone should ask themselves why, Madam Speaker.
That five of the Riksdag's eight parties are trying to circumvent the law to hide their tracks is worrying, Madam Speaker. It is distasteful and unworthy, and in the worst case, it is also illegal.
Justitieministern Gunnar Strömmer (M)
Madam Speaker! I share Märta Stenevis and the Green Party's ambition that this legislation should fulfill its purpose, namely to guarantee oversight and transparency from the perspective of the voters and the citizens. I also think it is a reasonable demand from the citizens that the parties handle these rules with some margin.
For my part, I would prefer to wait for the oversight that is now taking place. Märta Stenevi goes quite far and is somewhat sweeping in her assertions about exactly what different parties have been guilty of. Let us nevertheless say that it will be clarified through the oversight that is now being conducted.
There is something that I believe is extraordinarily important precisely because this concerns such important fundamental values: Regardless of how the rules are designed - regardless of whether we should come to the conclusion that today's rules are sufficient but should be applied with larger margins or if the supervision indicates that one needs to reconsider the regulatory framework in some respects - I believe it is extremely important that the rules are so clear that it is easy for the one who gives to understand what applies and easy for the one who receives to do the right thing. I am certain that it is possible to do both.
The legislation that currently applies has only a few years on its back. I note that the background to it is a parliamentary committee where all parties have participated and been in agreement. That legislation and the rules that apply today were tabled in the Riksdag by the Socialdemokraterna and Miljöpartiet. If it is our perception that the regulatory framework needs to be reconsidered in light of what is now emerging in a review, in light of the debate being held and in light of the supervision being carried out, we will return to the questions. But whichever path we choose, I think it is extraordinarily important that we strive to have the same broad parliamentary consensus behind this in the future as we have had behind the legislation that currently applies.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.