State financial equalization: Ministry of Finance views “extremism clause” critically

afp | The Federal Ministry of Finance is critical of the CSU idea of ​​an “extremism clause” in the state financial equalization system. Federal Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil (SPD) does not consider “this initiative to be particularly effective,” said a spokesman for the department on Friday in Berlin. The constitution provides other means “to take action against any violations”. These “could also be used”. When asked, the spokesman mentioned the so-called federal compulsion in this context.

The idea of ​​an “extremism clause” in the state financial equalization was brought up by Bavaria's Prime Minister and CSU leader Markus Söder. It is therefore aimed at Saxony-Anhalt and Berlin, where governments led by the AfD or the Left Party could be in office in the future. According to Söder, Bavaria is in discussions with the other two donor states Hesse and Baden-Württemberg about a corresponding regulation.

The Left clearly won the election to the Berlin House of Representatives on September 20th. Together with the Greens and the SPD, the party is aiming for a coalition in the capital. However, the plans are overshadowed by allegations of anti-Semitism against individual Left members. There is also sharp criticism from the Union about the socialization plans of the possible coalition partners.

In Saxony-Anhalt, AfD politician Ulrich Siegmund could become the first politician from the right-wing extremist party in Germany to assume government responsibility in December. The AfD clearly won the state elections at the beginning of September, but does not have a sole majority.

Finance Minister Klingbeil does not believe it is justified to “withhold funds from citizens of certain federal states,” said the ministry spokesman. The Financial Equalization Act depends on “the fact that all financial relationships between the federal and state governments and between the states are characterized by cooperation and mutual trust.”

When asked by a journalist at the federal press conference what other means the constitution provides to take action against gross violations of the law in the states, the spokesman replied: "This is primarily the so-called federal coercion."

The drastic right of intervention of “federal coercion” is regulated in Article 37 of the Basic Law. This means that the federal government, with the consent of the Bundesrat, can require a non-cooperative state to “fulfill its obligations”. For this purpose, a state commissioner could be appointed to take over certain government tasks. The “federal obligation” has not been used once since the founding of the Federal Republic. Affected state governments would probably file a lawsuit against this with the Federal Constitutional Court.