Status: 24.03.2021 4:38 a.m.
Should MPs disclose all ancillary income in the future? A corresponding proposal by the SPD chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz finds little support in the SPD in the state parliament. Nevertheless, there is discussion about more transparency in the merits of MPs.
The so-called “mask affair” in the Union and the allegations of corruption against several members of the CDU and CSU are also bringing new momentum to the transparency debate in the state parliament. The left has announced a new push for the April meeting. She wants to tighten the so-called rules of conduct for additional income and at the same time introduce a lobby register. This should provide information about the contact parliamentarians have with interest groups and what role these contacts play in their work in the state parliament.
Regain trust
The opposition is taking the current cases in the Union’s parliamentary group as an opportunity. “The mediation of corona protective masks against commission payments by several MPs has caused considerable damage to the credibility and integrity of politics as a whole,” says the application. In order to regain trust, more transparency is needed. As a matter of principle, the parliamentary group wants all income to be published alongside the diets. So far, the left has always failed in all proposals for more publication obligations due to resistance from the SPD and CDU.
Even waiver announced
However, the government partners are now under pressure. The CDU because of the events in the Bundestag faction, the SPD because of the demands of their Chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz. Scholz had campaigned to disclose all income in addition to the parliamentary payments in future – “from the first euro on,” as Scholz said in a newspaper interview. Several SPD Bundestag candidates have also made it clear that if they are elected they will disclose all ancillary income and even forego any income from it.
Reluctance among the SPD
The SPD in the state parliament reacted cautiously. Your parliamentary managing director Jochen Schulte, a lawyer in Rostock, said that client protection must also be taken into account in the transparency rules. That means: Schulte probably does not want full transparency with income at least from the legal work and he is thus distancing himself from the proposals of his own candidate for chancellor. On request, Schulte also stated that with the transparency provisions that are already in force, “we are preventing conflicts of interest in the state parliament by means of clear rules.”
Level had to name income
So far, these rules have stated that income, for example from consultations, reports or speeches, has to be stated if it is related to the mandate and is therefore not obtained in the context of the profession. A practiced profession is, for example, that of managing director in one’s own company or working as a lawyer. Income from these professions – unlike in the Bundestag – generally does not have to be reported. Additional income of over 750 euros, which was achieved in the course of the parliamentary activities, is published by the Landtag Presidium. Only one MP has jumped this hurdle since the 2016 election. Energy Minister Christian Level (SPD) earned between 1,000 and almost 3,000 euros each from “Remuneration for commentary contributions in legal textbooks” for the years 2017 to 2019. In addition to his ministerial office, the lawyer is also a member of the state parliament. Information for 2020 is not yet available.
No sanctions for violations
This is regulated in the state parliament’s rules of procedure. The so-called rules of conduct are, however, much more lax and not nearly as detailed as those of the Bundestag. In addition, there are no sanctions for violations. The state parliament’s rules of procedure only state: “The President shall inform the state parliament of the result of the review if a violation has been found.”
Stricter rules after the election
The SPD and CDU want to tighten the transparency rules – but only after the election in September. Many people would criticize “too lax transparency with additional income”, said the parliamentary manager of the SPD, Schulte. His CDU colleague Franz-Robert Liskow also said that there had to be “a higher degree of transparency” for secondary earnings. The AfD parliamentary group stated that “more transparency with regard to secondary employment certainly makes sense.” However, extensive disclosure obligations for the self-employed could be problematic, “as this is where the competition learns details about business relationships”.
Further information
