Isolated Action of LDP on Political Reform
Concerning public criticisms against the slush fund scandal, the Liberal Democratic Party submitted a bill for revising the Political Funds Control Act to the Diet. The ruling party failed in reaching an agreement with its coalition partner, Komeito, to co-sponsor the bill, because they differed each other over the details of regulation. Komeito’s reluctancy for cooperation with LDP may have stemmed from public denial against LDP shown in the by-elections in April.
LDP and Komeito has reached a rough deal on the amendment last week. However, they could not agree on some details over how to regulate the sales of ticket for fundraising parties or disclosure of funds disseminated to party leaders. Although two parties continued negotiation for co-sponsoring the bill this week.
The LDP gave up its effort to persuade Komeito, considering the schedule of the Diet. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced that he would make his best to pass the amendment by the end of this session closing in mid-June.
The bill the LDP submitted includes disclosure of information about who bought how many tickets of fundraising party, when the amount of purchase exceeds ¥100,000. The current threshold is ¥200,000, and Komeito argued it should be ¥50,000. It is unsure what is the difference between ¥100,000 and ¥50,000. The LDP supposedly thought that it can maintain its fundraising operation, if the threshold would be set at ¥100,000. Komeito insisted on exercising its influence over LDP in political reform.
The bill also requires a party to report how the political activity fund, the money distributed from the party to its lawmaker which does not have to be disclosed, was spent for, if the amount for a lawmaker exceeded ¥500,000. Komeito argued that the fund should be wholly disclosed regardless the amount.
The LDP can pass the bill in the House of Representatives, because the party has a simple majority in the House. However, it is not the case in the House of Councillors. While it needs some help from other parties in the Upper House to pass the bill, there is no hope so far. The opposition parties are taking farther different stance on amendment of the act than Komeito does.
It is very unusual for Komeito to reject co-sponsoring with the LDP over an important bill in the Diet. Komeito’s firm resistance against the LDP in political reform reflets its awareness on anger of the people against the LDP politics. In spite of Komeito’s firm support for a candidate of the LDP, the leading coalition suffered a terrible defeat in Shimane-1 district in the by-election, where the conservatives had been maintaining firm ground.
The result in Shimane brought a skepticism on election cooperation with the LDP, which may cause criticism on Komeito as a coalition partner. Showing stronger determination for political reform than the LDP is a necessary motivation for Komeito.
Comments
Post a Comment