To use this site, please disable the ad blocking feature and reload the page.
This website uses cookies to collect information about your visit for purposes such as showing you personalized ads and content, and analyzing our website traffic. By clicking “Accept all,” you will allow the use of these cookies.
Users accessing this site from EEA countries and UK are unable to view this site without your consent. We apologize for any inconvenience caused.
It is important to increase the transparency of the handling of political funds, but time should not be devoted solely to this matter.
The ruling and opposition parties should make efforts to settle the issue of political funds at an early stage by finding a point of agreement in their discussions, and then deepen the debate on national political issues at the extraordinary Diet session that begins on Nov. 28.
The ruling Liberal Democratic Party has compiled a reform proposal to revise the Political Funds Control Law. The main element of the proposal is the abolition of the political activity funds that are paid by the party to its Diet members.
Lawmakers do not have to disclose how the political activity funds are spent, and the LDP has spent around ¥1 billion annually for such purposes as bolstering election campaign support and dining with foreign dignitaries.
Abolition does not mean stopping the payment of the funds itself, but only a change in the destination of the funds to mainly party branches instead of individual lawmakers. The heads of the branches are lawmakers, so paying the funds to the branches can also be said to constitute, in effect, giving them to lawmakers.
The LDP intends to ensure transparency by making this expenditure subject to audits by a third-party organization to be newly established.
However, if this is the case, is it not sufficient to just keep the political activity funds as they are and have them audited by a third-party organization? The reform proposal appears to be a stopgap measure to fend off criticism from opposition parties.
The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan, the Japan Innovation Party and other parties also used political activity funds in the past. Are the opposition parties qualified to claim that the LDP is reluctant to engage in reform efforts?
The reform proposal also specifies a ban on the purchase of tickets for political fundraising parties by foreign nationals and foreign corporations. Treating party tickets the same way as political donations can be said to be appropriate, but the issue is how to maintain the effectiveness of the ban on party tickets.
The biggest focus of the forthcoming consultations between the ruling and opposition parties will be whether to ban donations from companies and organizations.
The CDPJ, the JIP and other parties are calling for a ban on the grounds that such contributions are a hotbed of corruption. The LDP claims that the donations should be maintained, as the party “does not take the position that donations by individuals are good and that those from corporations and organizations are bad.”
Among donations from organizations, however, the CDPJ intends to approve donations from political bodies. The party seems to assume that it will continue to receive donations from political organizations established by labor unions, but this is too opportunistic.
If donations from companies and organizations were to be banned, a point of contention remains whether to even regulate contributions that executives and other members of these companies and organizations make in their capacity as individuals.
If ways of raising money from supporters through legal means are limited, only hereditary lawmakers and wealthy individuals might be able to aspire to be politicians. This cannot be said to be appropriate.
The Political Funds Control Law was just revised in June. It would not be good if the legislature endlessly debates the proper use of its own funds.
