The things in the title have one thing in common. They cost many euros in tax money. But politicians and parties do not like to talk about their own money. That now comes on the head of the ÖVP. Perhaps other parties too, and politically not without reason.
1. The federal party of the ÖVP is accused of a corruption case. In addition, the Court of Audit has doubts about the correctness of the financial report for the election year 2019, which the party submitted with great delay. In both cases, it is important to clearly separate the legal review from the political review. Because the presumption of innocence applies. This is a constitutional provision in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and in Article 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Point.
2. A presumption of guilt with screams in the style of “Hang it higher!” is therefore a sign of the insufficiency of the loudest shouters in terms of legal and democratic policy. Politics can, of course, and must, be asked why there are certain – perhaps only legal – structures and actions of the ÖVP and possibly in parties in general that are suitable for tricks, camouflage and deception. Or fool people.
3. Let’s start with the example of campaign costs: according to the ÖVP, 6.9 million was spent on the EU elections and significantly less on the National Council elections in the same year. Namely 5.6 million. If true, General Secretary Karl Nehammer, as the top party manager of the time, was not particularly bright.
4. Because in the European elections, the ÖVP spoke of seven of the 705 MPs, which is only one hundredth. On the other hand, the ÖVP fought for about 40 times more MPs, government power and chancellorship in the elections to the National Council – calculated as a percentage comparison. Who would pay less for this than for almost zero additional influence in the European Parliament? No one.
5. The Court of Auditors’ doubts about the ÖVP’s allegations are therefore justified. Nehammer and his supporters can hardly present a counter-argument that makes sense: European elections are the only elections for which there is still an indirect reimbursement of campaign costs. As a party special promotion depending on the election results. The ÖVP received approximately 4.6 million euros.
6. The party could argue: “It was easier for us to spend huge amounts of money for the European elections because we knew we would get the most back from the taxpayers!” That’s not a smart move. Moreover, in 2012, it was an embarrassing fallacy for all parties to abolish the reimbursement of expenses for the National Council elections, but at the same time to increase party funding.
7. That was damn good business for all parties because there are subsidies every year and not just in election years. Speaking of business and subsidies, the Seniors’ Association in Upper Austria, a sub-organization of the ÖVP, is also an association. As such, like other “subgroup associations of parties”, he received corona money. What should we think politically if political parties and their components are legally excluded from funding, but party-identical associations with the same name, address and staff apply for and receive the money?
8. Here’s an analogy: Donald Duck looks like a duck, he waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck. what animal is he? The ÖVP convinces us that he certainly wouldn’t be a duck, but a different animal. A politically innocent lamb, so to speak. Because in the black-turquoise line of reasoning, all clubs that look so similar to the parties are also slightly different.
10. Martin Thür, political journalist at ORF, has compiled a list of partisan clubs. Last Friday, he counted 1090 clubs close to the ÖVP and 163 related to the SPÖ. The FPÖ is behind 65 clubs and the Greens in 57 cases. The Neos alone have only two close-knit clubs. There may be reasons for partisan club formations. But who is committed to ensuring that any subsidies, event subsidies or advertisements in member magazines are always awarded objectively?
10. This leads to the keyword journals. Here the Vorarlberg Economic Association, as a sub-organization of the ÖVP, fell into obscurity. Up to 82 (!) percent of his newspaper consisted of advertisements, which were six times more expensive than in other newspapers. Also from companies with a state share.
11. The question of comparative cases in all states and party media is an obvious one. How many advertisements paid with taxpayers’ money also contain nothing indecent, but little advertising and informative value? The ÖVP is under pressure to be much more transparent, but the SPÖ and FPÖ in particular would do well to follow suit.
Source: Krone
I’m an experienced news author and editor based in New York City. I specialize in covering healthcare news stories for Today Times Live, helping to keep readers informed on the latest developments related to the industry. I have a deep understanding of medical topics, including emerging treatments and drugs, the changing laws that regulate healthcare providers, and other matters that affect public health.
