Editorial: LDP proposals to address slush fund problem in Japan politics half-baked

Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has finally announced its proposed amendments to the Political Funds Control Act in response to the party's own murky slush fund scandal. But the revisions fall short of political reform, and can only be considered stopgap moves. Do they really expect these measures to recover citizens' trust?

The opposition parties and the LDP's coalition partner Komeito had submitted their revision proposals at the beginning of the year, and the LDP's were long overdue.

At first, the LDP attempted to have discussions with Komeito without the revisions being finalized. The announcement, in truth, required prodding from not only the opposition, but Komeito.

What's more, their contents don't go far enough.

Lawmakers will be required to submit political expense "confirmation" documents to verify that expense reports have been compiled properly as a way of holding them more accountable. If something is misreported and the person in charge of accounting is liable for punishment, politicians could temporarily lose their rights to public office if they have failed to check the accuracy of the reports.

The LDP is explaining this as a system of so-called guilt by association, but it is not as strict as that in the Public Offices Election Act. It leaves room for excuses since how politicians should "verify" the reports is left unexplained.

The proposals also establish a rule to store unreported amounts in public coffers, but that does not mean lawmakers will be immune from responsibility.

The LDP revisions completely leave out concrete measures on the restrictions or halting of political contributions from groups and businesses being asked for by opposition parties.

The purchases of tickets to political fundraising parties, the issue that sparked the host of problems, are de facto group and business donations. Komeito proposes lowering the threshold for publishing donors' names, while opposition parties insist on measures such as banning the ticket purchases altogether. The LDP proposals, however, merely mention conducting "sincere consultations with each party."

From the start, no steps whatsoever are made toward political funding transparency. It rejects a review to publicize the way "policy activity funds" distributed from party to individual politician are spent. Currently, lawmakers are not required to disclose what they spend such funds on.

While the proposals recognize "the state of transparency" as an issue, they also say there are "cases for which publishing is not appropriate" under the guise of freedom of political activity for businesses and others.

A large amount of funds was transferred from a political group involving LDP Secretary-General Toshimitsu Motegi to a different entity classified as an "other" political group, which is subject to more relaxed disclosure standards. Nothing in the LDP proposals address that sort of legally evasive practice.

The LDP will only deepen public mistrust by turning its back on political reform and failing to address the issues head-on.

The goal of the Political Funds Control Act is to put political activities "under constant public scrutiny and criticism." The LDP must work with other parties to pass fundamental revisions meeting that intent.