Judgment on party financing Digitization as justification is not enough

According to the Federal Constitutional Court's decision from 2018, the grand coalition was required to provide more specific justifications for the parties' increased financial needs. Not enough can be accomplished by merely citing rising costs.

A new regulation ought to be implemented right away. When defending the increase in state funding in 2018, the grand coalition of the Union and the SPD cited sharp increases in the parties' expenses.

Costs have increased as a result of digitization. As an illustration, consider the team that handles the parties' social media presences.

The federal constitutional court also presumptively considers higher costs associated with digitization in its ruling. The legislature must, however, formally define the justification for and scope of the funding requirement.

Doris König, presiding judge of the second senate, said that at the time, this did not take place. No comprehensible indications for estimating the size of the increased financial requirement brought on by digitization are provided in either the draft law or the subsequent legislative discussions.

Accurate Justification for Grant Increases In accordance with the ruling, legislators are required to provide a detailed justification for grant increases, outlining the reasons why the parties involved require more money. This is the only way to avoid giving the appearance that the parties are taking money out of the state coffers for themselves.

The parliamentary groups of the FDP, Left, and Greens had objected to the increase, and the federal constitutional court agreed with them. If the justification complies with the legal requirements, Canan Bayram, a right-wing politician for the Greens, believes it is possible that the upper limit will be increased in accordance with the constitution after the ruling.

But, according to Bayram, "it has to be clear - especially with regard to digitization - what additional costs were estimated and what were the savings, if any.". After the ruling, the CDU and CSU are pushing for a new regulation. Kühnert says that a joint new regulation makes sense.

These details were revealed in a press release issued by the general secretaries of both parties. That is also something that SPD General Secretary Kevin Kühnert, who visited Karlsruhe in person, can envision.

A new regulation is both feasible and sensible in light of the ruling, according to Kühnert. "Therefore, this should be an opportunity for the democratic parties to come together and consider what an appropriate and constitutional justification for the additional needs can look like.

"The direct consequences of the judgment as to whether the parties have to pay back money or not are still up in the air. The task of recovering state payments would fall to the administration of the Bundestag.

On whether it must or need not, the experts in Karlsruhe could not come to a consensus. In the actual judgment, there is nothing about this.

The University of Düsseldorf's Sophie Schönberger, a law professor who specializes in party law, does not believe that recovering the money is absolutely necessary. According to Schönberger, "the Bundestag administration could investigate whether it is possible to reclaim the excess money from the parties.".

From a legal perspective, it's comparatively difficult. However, it is not required that the Bundestag administration do it.

Whether they desire it or not is entirely up to them. One more AfD lawsuit was unsuccessful. The AfD faction had brought this one.

According to this, the legislative process in 2018 was completed far too quickly. Therefore, it is impossible that the opposition groups could have made sufficient preparations for the law change.

The Federal Constitutional Court, however, rejected the claim as being inadmissible and dismissed it. Files with the numbers 2 BvE 5/18 and 2 BvF 2/18.

If the justification complies with the legal requirements, Canan Bayram, a right-wing politician for the Greens, believes it is possible that the upper limit will be increased in accordance with the constitution after the ruling.