The best thing is, of course, if politicians don’t try to circumvent the rules and laws that they themselves have been involved in establishing. But when that train has passed, it is polite to at least admit one’s mistakes. Unfortunately, several of our Riksdag parties choose a different path after Kalla fakta’s review.
In the Cold Facts program The parties’ secret money, published yesterday, we hear hidden recordings of top politicians trying to find ways around the law to receive secret contributions. In total, there are five parties that together propose different methods to round off the law on anonymous contributions, which was created to prevent corruption.
The editors have compared what the politicians say openly when they are asked about anonymous contributions with what they say in secret when they are offered millions with the requirement that the donor’s identity be kept secret.
Demanding responsibility is a large and important part of investigative journalism, and thus the editors have subsequently sought out the politicians who come with double messages in the report in order to let them respond to the criticism and be accountable for their actions.
When politicians are asked why they say one thing openly but another in secret, the obvious reaction should be not to lie. Every one of the politicians who are held accountable for trying to circumvent the law should admit that they were wrong. It is honorable to admit mistakes. It is about ethics and morality.
Unfortunately, several of the audited parties choose a different path, namely to come up with lies and misleading answers.
Wrong by the Liberals
The Liberals write on their website that the dialogue between the party and Kalla fakta’s donors ended with the announcement that the Liberals cannot accept anonymous contributions. That statement is flat out wrong. As can be seen from the Party’s secret money program, the Liberals come up with suggestions on how the donor can hide their identity. In addition, Kalla fakta’s donors are referred to a consultant who is tasked with arranging so that the party can receive half a million kroner without it being traceable.
Misleading answer by KD
Even the Christian Democrats come up with misleading answers after the review. Party secretary Peter Kullgren, who himself has been involved in suggesting how the law can be rounded, writes a post on Facebook where he claims that the party made a decision not to give contact or bank details to the businessman who had contact with the party on behalf of Kalla fakta.
The claim is misleading.
The editors have saved all communications with the Christian Democrats and there it is clear that it is the businessman who worked on behalf of Kalla fakta and not KD who cut off contact.
When Ebba Busch later has to answer why her colleagues are proposing various schemes to circumvent the law on party financing, she refuses to admit that the party did anything wrong.
SSU presents alternative facts
Even the Social Democrats’ youth union SSU, chooses to present alternative facts by claiming that they rejected the donor’s wishes to make an anonymous contribution. The federal secretary Diyar Cicek and the press manager Youbert Aziz also claim that they understood that the donor was afraid of the consequences of taking such a clear stand against right-wing extremism and that they therefore understood why he wanted to remain anonymous.
In fact, the giver of Cold Facts never talks about any threat from right-wing extremists.
The SSU leaders offer lunch and several times come up with the suggestion that the donor should start a foundation to make it less obvious where the money comes from.
SSU’s union secretary Diyar Cicek met the reporting team before the review and talked about the importance of journalism. In that interview, he emphasized that the media should always have insight into the political parties.
When politicians who in other contexts highlight the importance of journalism for democracy lie and come up with alternative facts as soon as they themselves are scrutinized, they actively prevent a misrepresentation from being stopped. There is also a great risk that the contempt for politicians is nurtured.
With less than a month until the parliamentary elections, one can hope that the politicians examined in the program engage in some reflection instead of behaving in a Trumpist manner.
Frederick Malmberghead of TV4 Nyheterna and responsible publisher
Jonas Alsgrenprogram manager Cold facts
Sara Recabarreneditor Cold facts