Bribery In Electoral Processes Under Finnish Law
1. Legal Background
Under Finnish law:
Penal Code, Chapter 14, Section 2: Electoral bribery occurs when a person “offers, promises, or gives a benefit to someone in order to influence their vote or political action” or demands such a benefit.
Maximum Penalty: Up to one year imprisonment or a fine.
Related Offenses: Bribery of public officials (Chapter 16), abuse of trust, and illegal campaign funding.
Primary Concern: Maintaining free and fair elections by preventing influence through money or other benefits.
2. Detailed Case Explanations
Case 1: The Youth Foundation (Nuorisosäätiö) Scandal
Facts:
A foundation linked to the Centre Party, Nuorisosäätiö, was allegedly distributing funds to support Centre Party candidates’ election campaigns.
Funds included cash support and perks like travel for politicians, effectively functioning as indirect campaign contributions.
Legal Proceedings:
Former MP Jukka Vihriälä and others were investigated for accepting illegal benefits.
The court found that the foundation’s funds were used in a way that could influence political decisions and electoral outcomes.
Outcome:
Vihriälä was given a 14-month suspended sentence and had to return about €35,000 received in benefits.
Antti Kaikkonen, chair of the foundation, received a 5-month suspended sentence for abuse of trust.
Significance:
Demonstrates how foundations or indirect campaign support can constitute electoral bribery.
Reinforces the principle that benefits tied to election campaigns must be transparent and lawful.
Case 2: Marja Tiura – Undeclared Campaign Funding
Facts:
MP Marja Tiura received undeclared funds from private companies for her election campaigns, including financial gifts and personal perks.
The support was intended to influence her political activities, including legislative decisions.
Legal Proceedings:
Investigation focused on whether these payments constituted illegal influence or electoral bribery.
Outcome:
Tiura returned part of the funds voluntarily.
She was not formally convicted under the strict electoral bribery law, but the case triggered scrutiny of campaign financing practices.
Significance:
Shows that electoral bribery does not need to involve direct vote-buying; financial influence over a candidate counts.
Highlights gaps in campaign finance transparency prior to legal reforms.
Case 3: 2007 Finnish Campaign Finance Scandal
Facts:
Multiple MPs received hidden or undeclared campaign funds from private entities.
The funds were used to cover election costs or provide personal benefits.
Legal Proceedings:
National prosecutors investigated improper campaign funding as a form of electoral bribery.
Outcome:
Few individuals were convicted due to difficulty proving direct quid pro quo.
The scandal led to stricter campaign finance laws in 2009, improving transparency and disclosure requirements.
Significance:
Demonstrates that systemic loopholes in campaign funding can facilitate bribery.
Prevention through legal reform is as important as prosecution.
Case 4: Ilkka Kanerva Corruption Case
Facts:
Ilkka Kanerva, a high-profile politician, accepted gifts and financial benefits from business executives who sought influence over his political decisions.
Although not a classic vote-buying case, the benefits were tied to his official capacity and potential election influence.
Legal Proceedings:
Initially convicted for bribery and abuse of office in 2012, receiving a 15-month suspended sentence.
Upon appeal, some convictions were overturned, showing challenges in proving electoral influence.
Significance:
Illustrates difficulty of prosecuting indirect bribery.
Reinforces that gifts or benefits in connection with political office can fall under electoral bribery or corruption statutes.
Case 5: Alleged Bribery via Support Organizations
Facts:
Several MPs received benefits from third-party support organizations that acted on behalf of private companies.
Funds or perks were intended to indirectly influence political decisions and enhance electoral prospects.
Legal Proceedings:
Courts examined whether the benefits had a direct or indirect impact on voting or election outcomes.
Outcome:
Some MPs were convicted of abuse of trust and receiving unlawful benefits, though not always under the strict definition of electoral bribery.
Fines and suspended sentences were common.
Significance:
Highlights that electoral bribery can occur indirectly through complex networks of donations and support organizations.
Finnish law recognizes indirect financial influence as a threat to free elections.
3. Key Principles from These Cases
Electoral bribery in Finland covers indirect benefits—not just direct vote-buying.
Campaign finance abuse can constitute bribery if it aims to influence electoral outcomes.
Convictions are often suspended sentences; fines and restitution are typical.
Legal reforms and transparency requirements are critical to prevent bribery.
Proof of quid pro quo is challenging, especially for indirect benefits or foundation-based support.
Conclusion
While Finland rarely has cases of classic vote-buying, these five examples show how financial influence over candidates, MPs, or campaigns falls under the broader notion of electoral bribery. Courts have consistently emphasized:
Transparency in campaign funding,
Avoidance of benefits tied to electoral influence, and
Accountability for misuse of foundations or private contributions.
The principle is clear: any benefit intended to influence elections or political decision-making can be criminal under Finnish law, even if no individual voter is directly bribed.
RELATED Blog
comments