No, That Is Not the Point—Why Dissolving a Party, Public Subsidies, and Slush Funds Should Not Be Discussed as If They Were the Same Issue

A political party that has effectively split apart keeps itself alive with just one lawmaker so that it can continue receiving public subsidies.

These subsidies are financial support for political parties, and they are funded by taxpayers.

I have discussed this issue on this blog before.

The other day, I watched a YouTube video in which a lawmaker defended the situation, and it reinforced what I had already felt.

No. That is not the point.

“It Is Not Illegal” Is Not an Answer

In the video, the lawmaker essentially argued that this was not illegal money.

The comparison he then brought up was the ruling party’s slush fund scandal involving political funds.

The issue in that case was a violation of the law. The party subsidy in this case, however, can be received under the current system. Therefore, the lawmaker argued, the two issues are different in nature.

But that is precisely the point.

They are different in nature.

That is why bringing up the slush fund scandal does not answer the question being asked here.

The question is not:

“Is it illegal?”

It is:

“How do you justify an effectively defunct political party continuing to receive taxpayers’ money by retaining only one lawmaker?”

There Is Only One Thing I Want to Know

What I want to know is not particularly complicated.

What will the money received this year be used for? And if the party remains in existence, what will happen to the public subsidy it receives next year?

I can still understand the explanation that the party has debts and needs to remain in existence to settle its current obligations.

But if so, what happens after those payments have been made?

Will the party dissolve? Or will it remain in existence with only one lawmaker and receive another public subsidy next year?

I want a clear answer on this point, but the response has been evasive.

“We are not breaking the law.”

“This is less serious than the ruling party’s slush funds.”

No matter how many times those points are repeated, they do not answer the question.

“Someone Else Is Worse” Is an Excuse Even an Elementary School Student Can Use

I have no intention of defending the ruling party’s slush fund scandal.

If the law was broken, that should be pursued as a separate matter.

But saying,

“The ruling party has done something worse,”

does not make your own obligation to explain disappear.

It is like a teacher saying at school,

“You have not done your homework,”

and the student replying,

“But Tanaka, who sits next to me, cheated on a test.”

Even if Tanaka cheated, your homework does not suddenly become completed and submitted.

For some reason, reasoning at this level is presented as a serious rebuttal in politics.

If Anything, the Slush Fund Scandal Teaches the Opposite Lesson

This is where the irony lies.

One reason the slush fund scandal drew criticism was that the flow of money was not visible.

Who collected how much, where did it go, and what was it used for?

It became a problem because no one could see the answers.

If there is a lesson to learn from that case, it is not:

“We are better than the ruling party’s slush funds.”

It should be:

“That is why we will be completely transparent.”

For those spending the money, having to explain every use and answer questions may be tiresome.

But political funds are, by their very nature, supposed to be tiresome in precisely that way.

Paradoxically, the money behind the slush funds came from corporate donations. If properly disclosed in the financial reports, it would be legitimate money.

As long as the proper procedures are followed, lawmakers are free to decide how to use it.

Party subsidies, however, are taxpayers’ money.

They are not a personal wallet to be used at will.

If It Is Not Illegal, Is That the End of the Matter?

Whether something is permitted under the system and whether the public finds it acceptable are two different questions.

They must not be conflated.

Bringing the slush fund scandal into the discussion only makes the issue even harder to understand.

If the slush funds were illegal, pursue that issue on its own merits.

As for this party subsidy, explain this party subsidy.

It is astonishingly simple.

If you receive taxpayers’ money, explain what you will use it for.

Explain what will happen to the party once its current obligations have been settled.

If you intend to receive the subsidy again next year, explain what you will do with that money.

That is all.

The discussion becomes distorted because, when those questions are asked, the answers are:

“It is not illegal.”

“The ruling party is worse.”

What politicians need to do is not prove that they are better than their opponents. They need to properly explain their own actions.

Even an elementary school student can say, “Someone else is worse.”