The Constitutional Court has recently ruled that the Political Funds Act banning political parties from forming supporters’ associations to collect political funds is unconstitutional. It set June 30, 2017 as the deadline to amend the relevant provisions of the act.

The provisions in question allow only individual politicians, including lawmakers, presidential candidates and candidates for party leadership competitions, to form supporters’ associations and collect political funds.

The court said these provisions not only encroached upon people’s right to express their political views by making contributions to the parties of their choice, but restricted the right of political parties to conduct their activities.

The court’s ruling is indisputable, but it causes concern as it could revive the corrupt symbiotic relationship between political parties and big businesses.

The present law on political funds was enacted in 2006 following the prosecution’s investigations into the shocking illegal fund-raising activities of the Grand National Party, the predecessor of the current ruling Saenuri Party, in the run-up to the 2002 presidential election.

The party was found to have received astronomical amounts of political funds from conglomerates. From one business group, it received a truck loaded with cash. 

The scandal triggered loud calls for measures to sever the collusive links between big business and political parties. The current law was the result of a subsequent political reform campaign.

While prohibiting political parties from collecting funds from their supporters’ associations, the law introduced a system subsidizing the activities of political parties with money from the national treasury.

The court pointed out the downsides of this subsidy system. It said the system has impeded free competition among political parties as it favored big parties by allocating subsides based on the number of lawmakers. 

In the court’s view, the possibility of collusion between big businesses and political parties cannot justify banning voters from providing political funds to their favorite parties, because the problem is limited to a handful of unscrupulous chaebol groups and corrupt political groups.

While lifting the ban on political parties’ fund-raising, the court suggested a sharp cut in government subsidies and ways to ensure transparent management of political funds, including a ban on making contributions anonymously and a detailed disclosure of contributions. 

But it is doubtful that these measures could prevent conglomerates and political parties from establishing a cozy relationship. If political parties pressure corporations to provide political funds, few would be able to resist such demands.

Now lawmakers have to take these concerns into consideration in revising the Political Funds Act. They also need to reflect the court’s suggestions in changing the method by which they allocate subsidies.