Judgment on party financing: Digitization as a reason is not enough

In 2018, the grand coalition should have explained in more detail why the parties needed more money, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled. Simply pointing to increased costs is not enough. Now there should be a new regulation quickly.

In 2018, the grand coalition of the Union and the SPD justified the increase in state subsidies by saying that the parties’ expenses had increased significantly. Digitization has led to higher costs. For example, with the staff who take care of the social media appearances of the parties.

In its decision, the Federal Constitutional Court also assumes that digitization can lead to higher expenses. However, the legislature must precisely quantify why and how much money is needed.

This did not happen at the time, according to Doris König, presiding judge of the second senate. Neither the draft law nor the subsequent legislative deliberations contain any comprehensible indications for determining the amount of the additional financial requirement caused by digitization.

Precise justification for top-up grants

According to the ruling, the legislature must justify an increase in state subsidies very precisely and explain in detail why the parties need more money. This is the only way to avoid the impression that the parties are helping themselves from the state treasury.

The Federal Constitutional Court thus agreed with the parliamentary groups of the FDP, Left and Greens, who had complained against the increase. Canan Bayram, right-wing politician for the Greens, considers it conceivable after the decision that the upper limit will be increased in accordance with the constitution if the reasoning corresponds to the legal requirements. “But it has to be clear – especially with regard to digitization – what additional costs were estimated? What were the savings, if any?” says Bayram.

Kühnert: Joint new regulation makes sense

After the verdict, the CDU and CSU are campaigning for a new regulation. This was announced by the general secretaries of both parties in a press release.

SPD General Secretary Kevin Kühnert, who came to Karlsruhe in person, can also imagine that. According to the judgment, a new regulation is possible and sensible, said Kühnert. “Therefore, this should now be an occasion for the democratic parties to sit down and look together at what an appropriate and constitutional justification for the additional needs can look like.”

Do the parties have to pay back money?

The direct consequences of the judgment as to whether the parties have to pay back money or not is an open question. It would be the task of the Bundestag administration to reclaim state payments. The experts in Karlsruhe did not agree on whether it has to or not. There is nothing about this in the judgment itself.

Law professor Sophie Schönberger, an expert in party law at the University of Düsseldorf, does not consider it absolutely necessary to reclaim the funds. “The Bundestag administration could check whether it is possible to reclaim the excess money from the parties,” said Schönberger. “It’s relatively demanding from a legal point of view. But the Bundestag administration doesn’t have to do it. It’s up to them whether they want it or not.”

AfD lawsuit fails

There was another lawsuit filed by the AfD faction. This had claimed that the legislative process had been carried out far too quickly in 2018. Therefore, the opposition factions could not have prepared well enough for the change in the law. However, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the action as inadmissible.

File number: 2 BvE 5/18 and 2 BvF 2/18

BVerfG: Increase in party funding unconstitutional

Klaus Hempel, SWR, 24.1.2023 4:08 p.m