CDU and CSU Challenge Charitable Status of NGOs and Journalists

The CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag has drawn attention with a recent inquiry questioning the charitable status of several civil society and journalistic organizations. This move has sparked outrage not only among the targeted entities but also within the broader public discourse.

Organizations such as Omas gegen rechts, Animal Rights Watch, and Correctiv are at the center of this scrutiny, which the CDU/CSU initiated just days before the recent Bundestag elections. The inquiry follows protests organized by these groups opposing the collaboration of the CDU/CSU with the AfD to tighten migration policies.

Critics of the inquiry, including Timo Reinfrank, managing director of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, have labeled it a transparent intimidation tactic. Similarly, Felix Kolb from the campaign organization Campact suggested that the inquiry aims to stifle civil society.

The inquiry, which spans a remarkable 32 pages, comprises 551 individual questions concerning the activities of 17 NGOs, including queries about their potential political biases and funding sources. For instance, the CDU/CSU has sought to ascertain whether Omas gegen rechts conducts campaigns against specific political parties or whether Greenpeace engages in discrediting political opponents.

Among the organizations under investigation are Correctiv gGmbH, Omas gegen rechts Deutschland e. V., Campact e. V., and several others involved in environmental and social advocacy.

The extensive nature of the inquiry has raised concerns about its implications for government transparency. Traditionally, parliamentary inquiries serve as a means for lawmakers to hold the government accountable and gather information on various issues. However, in this case, many of the questions appear to inquire about information that the government may not have the capacity to provide, particularly regarding the internal operations and affiliations of the NGOs.

For example, the CDU/CSU's inquiry seeks to understand whether any leadership figures within Correctiv hold political office or have close ties to political parties. Such questions may only be answerable through unlawful surveillance, prompting further debate over the appropriateness of this inquiry.

Moreover, the inquiry raises procedural concerns within the Bundestag, as it is unusual for such an expansive set of questions to be approved without thorough vetting by parliamentary administration. Typically, inquiries are refined to ensure alignment with the parliamentary right to question the government, and any perceived overreach can lead to rejection.

In its justification, the CDU/CSU stated that the inquiry arises from increasing discussions about the political neutrality expected of state-funded organizations, especially in light of recent protests organized by these NGOs. The party emphasized the necessity for publicly funded entities to maintain a non-partisan stance.

Reactions from affected organizations and political figures have been swift and critical. Daniel Drepper, an investigative journalist and board member of Netzwerk Recherche, expressed concern over the implications for established journalistic organizations. He emphasized the need for the strengthening of non-profit entities, particularly in journalism, during these challenging times.

Furthermore, Felix Kolb from Campact criticized the CDU/CSU's portrayal of the legal framework governing charitable organizations, asserting that these entities are indeed allowed to influence political discourse and hold parties accountable.

Green party officials have accused the CDU/CSU of employing AfD-like tactics, expressing alarm over the authoritarian tendencies evident in their approach to civil society organizations. Similarly, representatives from the Left party characterized the inquiry as an unprecedented attack on democratic civil society, recalling tactics used in authoritarian regimes.

In light of the CDU/CSU's inquiry, there are growing calls for a robust defense of civil society's role in democracy and the necessity for transparency in how public funds are utilized.