Allegations against AfD election campaign financing in Saxony-Anhalt

Did the AfD illegally finance parts of its election campaign in Saxony-Anhalt? An accusation by several constitutional lawyers published in “Spiegel” is primarily directed against the so-called citizen dialogues of the AfD parliamentary group, which took place throughout the country. What is crucial for the legal assessment is whether these events are to be classified as parliamentary information or election advertising.

“The AfD’s election campaign in Saxony-Anhalt was largely financed by party funds,” Berlin law professor and party law expert Sophie Schönberger told the magazine. This was “obviously illegal” and could lead to the election being successfully contested.

In the past, courts have rejected such objections on the grounds that the inadmissible election advertising had no impact on the election results. Schönberger doesn't think this is a foregone conclusion for Saxony-Anhalt. Given the number and duration of the citizen dialogues, one could “see this differently,” said Schönberger.

The AfD parliamentary group leader in the Magdeburg state parliament, Patrick Harr, firmly rejected the criticism when asked by WELT. The citizens' dialogues were "paid for within the permitted framework and within the permitted period from the group's funds." Harr “completely” rejected Schönberger’s criticism. The AfD “makes a clear distinction between the work of its group and that of its party.”

Anyone entitled to vote can object to the election

The Freiburg lawyer Fabian Michl also believes that contesting the election is fundamentally possible. He explained in “Spiegel” that inadmissible campaign financing by parliamentary groups violates the parties’ equal opportunities. It represents “an election error that can be made the subject of an election audit procedure.”

The Berlin constitutional lawyer Christoph Möllers, however, expressed himself more cautiously. He could also see the covert financing of parties as an interference in democratic competition. The problem, however, is that “there is actually no manageable criterion for mandate relevance”. In addition, a repeat election would be such a massive intervention “that it would hardly be used”.