Paradoxical political doping
What’s striking—and offensive—is the media witch hunt against Anita Fetz and her associates, not their charitable giving. After all, anyone in this business who publicly discloses their sponsors will soon find themselves without any.
Column The media hunt for Anita Fetz & Co. is offensive, not their donation behavior. Because anyone who reveals their sponsors in this business will soon have none left.Anita Fetz has not had a good summer. Roberto Zanetti, the trade unionist who had risen to become the leader of the government in Solothurn, had it only slightly easier in her slipstream. After all, the communication disaster of the two down-to-earth social democratic politicians could hardly have been more brutal. All they did was accept election donations from people who were sympathetic to them - in some cases across party lines. What, pray tell, is reprehensible about that?
The sponsors are being brought close to a financial engineer who probably leaves many questions unanswered, but who no one has yet been able to prove is dishonest. This Dieter Behring is obviously the target of an orchestrated campaign. It is as true that such campaigns never have anything to do with competitive jealousy in the financial centers and that they are always motivated by louder motives than the fact that the earth is flat. Did Behring demand or even receive anything from Fetz/Zanetti for his donation - a better tip by his standards? Did
the Pro Facile Foundation, whose charitable services have not been called into question up to now, has taken undue advantage? Apparently not. What remains are election campaign donations on an unusual scale - at least for the canton of Solothurn. Although this should not be viewed so narrowly either. For example, I have just read in the magazine "Jagd & Natur" that the Solothurn hunters had to spend a whopping CHF 22,000,000 at the beginning of 2004 to defend two cantonal popular initiatives against hunting.
In Zurich, anyone who is not blessed with the grace of naivety knows which entrepreneurs have been filling politicians' campaign accounts for years. Especially those who are running for executive offices and who can therefore be assumed to have their own hand on the
have a cash register. It's not just the middle-class exponents who are considered; no, the landscape to the left of the central reservation also needs to be looked after.
It would never occur to one of the noble donors to ask for something in return; they can rely on the anticipatory obedience of their representatives. At the crucial moment, they already know what is right. How this works in detail can be read in the memoirs of the late Werner Spross. For the sake of curiosity, it should be noted that acting Zurich government councillors even dived for gold on his yacht, which the tycoon deliberately threw into the water.
There is a very simple way to counter the evil appearance of venality and to shed light on the gray areas between politics and business: openness and publicity. What is clearly declared deserves trust, regardless of whether it is a cutlet or a donation. What is public, or at least publicly accessible, can be monitored and is therefore accountable. Because what I know is no longer so hot. One could conclude from this that politicians who disclose their sponsors demonstrate sovereignty and independence. The only problem is that under these circumstances, many donors no longer give anything. The entrepreneurs mentioned above - even though everyone who comes from them knows them - would be the first to discreetly withdraw. Spross was the only one who was open about his practices. Most of the others would rather bite their tongues off than admit that they too are sowing to cultivate the landscape.
Openness disarms attackers. However, it only works if it is voluntary and proactive and not demanded by others. Anyone who puts themselves on the defensive, who lets envious people and snipers set the agenda, has already lost. Like Anita Fetz and Roberto Zanetti.
> Karl Lüönd is Head of the Media Institute of the Swiss Media Association
Press, publicist and hunter.
The sponsors are being brought close to a financial engineer who probably leaves many questions unanswered, but who no one has yet been able to prove is dishonest. This Dieter Behring is obviously the target of an orchestrated campaign. It is as true that such campaigns never have anything to do with competitive jealousy in the financial centers and that they are always motivated by louder motives than the fact that the earth is flat. Did Behring demand or even receive anything from Fetz/Zanetti for his donation - a better tip by his standards? Did
the Pro Facile Foundation, whose charitable services have not been called into question up to now, has taken undue advantage? Apparently not. What remains are election campaign donations on an unusual scale - at least for the canton of Solothurn. Although this should not be viewed so narrowly either. For example, I have just read in the magazine "Jagd & Natur" that the Solothurn hunters had to spend a whopping CHF 22,000,000 at the beginning of 2004 to defend two cantonal popular initiatives against hunting.
In Zurich, anyone who is not blessed with the grace of naivety knows which entrepreneurs have been filling politicians' campaign accounts for years. Especially those who are running for executive offices and who can therefore be assumed to have their own hand on the
have a cash register. It's not just the middle-class exponents who are considered; no, the landscape to the left of the central reservation also needs to be looked after.
It would never occur to one of the noble donors to ask for something in return; they can rely on the anticipatory obedience of their representatives. At the crucial moment, they already know what is right. How this works in detail can be read in the memoirs of the late Werner Spross. For the sake of curiosity, it should be noted that acting Zurich government councillors even dived for gold on his yacht, which the tycoon deliberately threw into the water.
There is a very simple way to counter the evil appearance of venality and to shed light on the gray areas between politics and business: openness and publicity. What is clearly declared deserves trust, regardless of whether it is a cutlet or a donation. What is public, or at least publicly accessible, can be monitored and is therefore accountable. Because what I know is no longer so hot. One could conclude from this that politicians who disclose their sponsors demonstrate sovereignty and independence. The only problem is that under these circumstances, many donors no longer give anything. The entrepreneurs mentioned above - even though everyone who comes from them knows them - would be the first to discreetly withdraw. Spross was the only one who was open about his practices. Most of the others would rather bite their tongues off than admit that they too are sowing to cultivate the landscape.
Openness disarms attackers. However, it only works if it is voluntary and proactive and not demanded by others. Anyone who puts themselves on the defensive, who lets envious people and snipers set the agenda, has already lost. Like Anita Fetz and Roberto Zanetti.
> Karl Lüönd is Head of the Media Institute of the Swiss Media Association
Press, publicist and hunter.
