As of: 01/31/2023 4:44 p.m
A lobby case like that of former Chancellor Schröder would no longer be possible today. But there are still enough cases of corruption in politics. One federal state stands out with exemplary rules.
It is a textbook example of long-term and strategic attempts to exert influence from abroad, which could damage the Federal Republic and even become a question for national security: the actions of the Russian state-owned company Gazprom. The most visible is the Foundation for climate and environmental protection MV in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. In the meantime, a committee of inquiry is working on the relationship between the state government in Schwerin and the foundation, the Baltic Sea pipeline Nord Stream 2 and other companies.
The success of Russian influence, which resulted in Germany becoming dependent on Russian gas, was already evident in the case of Nord Stream 1. An important player in this: Gerhard Schröder. No sooner had the SPD politician been voted out of office and handed over official duties to Angela Merkel on November 22, 2005 than it was announced that he was joining Gazprom. Schröder became head of the supervisory board of the consortium that had just been formed for the construction of Nord Stream 1. A few months later it became known that the federal government wanted to guarantee a loan with high guarantees for Gazprom in the last few weeks in office. To this day, Schröder has been accused of a conflict of interest.
The case of the Nord Stream pipeline is an example of weaknesses in preventing and fighting corruption in Germany. Transparency International Germany (TI) complains that little has changed in this area in the past ten years, and if so, then only after scandals, but even then still hesitantly. This was said by Deputy Chairwoman Margerete Bause on the occasion of this year’s publication of the Corruption Perceptions Index. Despite reforms, there are still construction sites, such as the tightening of the law on bribery of MPs.
Scandals so far without criminal consequences
According to anti-corruption officers, paragraph 108e of the Criminal Code is a “blunt sword”. This can be seen from the fact that various scandals have so far remained without criminal consequences. This includes the mask scandal. Two key figures, Andrea Tandler and her business partner, are in custody – but this is currently due to tax law allegations. The lobbying work for the US IT company “Augustus Intelligence” had no legal consequences for the CDU member of the Bundestag Philipp Amthor.
In the affair about Azerbaijan’s influence, the Munich public prosecutor’s office is still investigating the CDU politician Axel Fischer, the CSU politician Eduard Lintner and his son, and the ex-employee of a lobbying company. A result is currently not foreseeable, said court spokesman Klaus Ruhland on request tagesschau.de with. Lintner is said to have received around four million euros from Azerbaijan between 2008 and 2016 and passed part on to members of parliament in Belgium and Germany. The funds are said to have flowed through British letterbox companies and accounts in the Baltic States.
Criminal liability gap for bribery of MPs
Last year, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that there was a criminal liability gap in the criminal code paragraphs on corruption and bribery of elected officials. Specifically, it was about the mask deals of the ex-CSU member of the Bundestag Georg Nüßlein and the former Minister of Justice of Bavaria, Alfred Sauter.
The key point is that, according to the law, the unlawful agreement between the briber and the bribed elected official must take place “when the mandate is exercised”. In the specific case, Sauter and Nüßlein acted “extra-parliamentary” and did not exercise their mandates within the meaning of the relevant paragraph, according to the court. However, it indicated that the law is in need of revision. At the same time, it complained that international law had not been transposed into German law with regard to abusive influence. This is provided for in two international legal agreements to which the Federal Republic had joined.
Gaps in the lobby register
The coalition agreement between the SPD, FDP and Greens states: “We will make the criminal offense of bribery and corruption of MPs more effective.” One tagesschau.de-The Federal Ministry of Justice left unanswered inquiries about the current status and timetables for implementation, including with regard to the plan to tighten the rules on party sponsorship and the lobby register.
The coalition agreement provides for the lobby register to “include contacts to ministries from the speaker level and (to) expand the circle of interest groups that are subject to registration in a differentiated manner that protects fundamental rights”. The lobby register law was passed in the last legislative period after the Union, as the coalition partner at the time, gave up its longstanding opposition to SPD plans – after the affairs surrounding Amthor, Azerbaijan and the mask deals. However, the Justice Minister at the time, Christine Lambrecht, was unable to push through with further measures.
One gap is that lobbyists have to name clients, but this can be avoided if the money goes to companies that MPs have founded. This was the case with the mask deals and Azerbaijan. “That’s still legally possible. In this case, there are currently no disclosure requirements – not based on the lobby register and not on the basis of the MPs Act,” explains the expert Norman Loeckel from Transparency International. In the US, for example, there is a “foreign agent” law for those acting on behalf of other states. It requires transparency about sources of finance and expenditure.
Loeckel emphasizes that whatever procedures are chosen for the disclosure and prohibition of lobbying activities, they must not only be defined at the federal level, but also in the federal states. This was already shown by the examples of the climate foundation in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and the Azerbaijan affair, in which members of the state parliament were also involved. In a lobby ranking compiled by Transparency International, the federal government is far ahead of most federal states when it comes to implementing measures.
In the overview of the introduction of various transparency rules, Thuringia leads the federal states. Loeckel considers the rules on waiting periods, which can be found in the Thuringian ministerial law, to be exemplary. According to this, former members of the state government are subject to a waiting period of up to two years, during which they must declare in writing any activities outside of the public service. An independent panel, appointed by the state parliament, determines whether public interests would be adversely affected by the employment. In these cases, the activity can be prohibited. Violations can have severe consequences.
A case like that of former Chancellor Schröder would no longer be possible today, even at the federal level. However, according to Loeckel, a waiting period of three years would be appropriate – instead of the current twelve months for normal cases and 18 months for special conflicts of interest. He points out that five years apply to civil servants and thus also to parliamentary state secretaries with civil servant status. But since there are no sanctions for the latter, violations, as with ministers, have no consequences.
A matter of national security
Since there is already a lack of control, TI is also campaigning for an independent lobby officer who, among other things, checks the information provided by MPs. In any case, corruption should not only be given more attention as a threat to the integrity of politics, but also as a potential threat to national security. Accordingly, fighting and preventing corruption should be included in the national security strategy that the traffic light coalition has undertaken.
At a request from tagesschau.de to the Federal Foreign Office whether this is planned and whether the strategy should be presented at the Munich Security Conference, it said: “The details of the work on the content of the national security strategy are part of internal coordination by the Federal Government. No information can therefore be given on individual questions will.”