The report on how individuals donate money to the political parties makes it clear that we are not really consistent in our way
to consider how slants can corrupt.

It seems obvious to many that if a private person gives a lot of money to a party, it risks jeopardizing the political
system.

But that the state pays most of the parties' activities, it is significantly fewer who see a problem with.
IF it is now the case that money is corrupt - which we have good reason to suspect - then this also probably applies to public funds.

The parties should, if reasoning is consistent, thus risk becoming more dependent on the state than their members.

And the question is if this is not exactly what has happened. By gradually nationalizing the parties, we have chosen instead of free agents
by the Swedish people, got an order where we basically select a number of party political officials who will guard our interests towards
state.

It may also be the reason why voters have recently begun to look after other parties, which are not perceived as synonymous with the state apparatus.

The absurd thing then happens is that when the Sweden Democrats come into Parliament rewarded with large voter support, they suddenly get a lot of money
which they hardly know how to handle.

Why?

For the simple reason that party support is oversized to keep old and tired organizations under arms. Not to stimulate populist grassroots movements. Which gives the newcomer SD great advantages.

Of course, the parties are now forced to report their income, if the public support is also made clear.

But we should be aware that there are also other ways of influencing the parties than giving them cash.

One such effect is that various organizations, special interests and industries "rattle off the leadership" before electoral movements by listing their issues on the agenda.

When citizens then choose a party, it takes place within a framework that affects different interests. This is very difficult to do something about in a democracy. More than hoping that the media scrutinized their sources' sources a little better.

Another impact is that interest organizations deliberately match people in the parties who will represent them. Like offering free
labor for the electoral organizations.

What is a million kronor worth, compared to 100 election workers running around the clock for two weeks?

But the question is how worried we should be. If we look at how much money the parties have spent in the electoral movements - and how many votes they received then - there seems to be no clear link between the coal and the popular support.

Maybe it's even the other way around?

The Center Party has reported that in the 2018 election they burned SEK 70 million. That gave them 557,500 votes. Thus, they paid much more per
vote, SEK 126, than any of the other parties. While the left party - which let its electoral budget go loose at 18 million - conquered almost as many votes, 518,454, thus garnering only SEK 35 per vote.

This suggests that money is not necessarily enough to win the hearts of voters.