Yes, it is easy to find other and older American songs that use the same expression, and certainly it may seem like an overpower by an artist to claim ownership of something people have gone around and said for maybe a century - much like you say "it is constant plagues ”or“ hard commands in Mellerud ”.
But on the other hand: in a contemporary Swedish context, the disputed term is inextricably linked to Jason Diakité, and it is very strong.
And it is clear that SD's poster maker intended to appeal to Timbuktu - one of the party's prominent and avid critics. It must be seen as the idea itself, to do a little bit with Timbuktu and make the party sympathizers smile. Otherwise, there would have been no point at all with their slogan, which is really very diffuse in its meaning if you consider it a political election argument.
But Jason Diakité and Universal are going to need to specify what they mean by SD "using" the copyrighted song. After all, it is not a question of SD playing "Everyone wants to heaven" in any political context. It had been a clear copyright infringement. What the party has done is to refer to it, referred to it, in its political opinion formation. Stopping such with reference to copyright is a good much more debatable ambition.
This is the core issue that makes this trial in principle important and of general interest, and not just a routine right-wing giveaway.
Think: A makes a public statement. B makes a public statement which is a variation of A's statement.
A says to B: You must not say that, I own that statement.
If you ignore everything else , it can already be stated in advance that the actions of the Diakité and the Universal do not strengthen the free debate, public conversation and political opinion formation. On the contrary, it is an attempt, with copyright as a weapon, to silence opinion formation one does not like. The question is how good would it be for society?