German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6312-6314.
Right honorable President. Honored members.
The CDU Minister-president Daniel Günther just a few days ago quite openly declared the press to be an enemy. He spoke of censorship, ja, even of a ban of free media – statements which, let us be honest, had they been used by an AfD minister-president
Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Happily, there
are none!
would have immediately led to demands for a party ban proceeding. They will now by the Union be relativized and applauded, dear colleagues of the CDU/CSU. If you have the decency, then distance yourself here and today from such authoritarian fantasies of the minister-president.
Maja Wallstein (SPD): You speak like the blind man of color.
Stephan Brandner (AfD): Wow! Can the
next speaker do the same?
Especially handy for Günther and his supporters is that the European Union meanwhile delivers precisely this tool suitable for his authoritarian dreams from the Digital Services Act, which the coordinating office for digital service in fact degrades to a censorship authority
Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That is
false!
by the planned EU chat control which shall make possible an unfounded mass surveillance of citizens, up to a so-called decree on “transparency and targeting of political advertising”; in short: TTPA. And before you, as so often in these debates, respond to our motion [Drucksache 21/3609] with over-reaching allegations:
Ronja Kemmer
(CDU/CSU): Mimimi!
Just because we want to cancel the TTPA is not to say we are against transparency or would tolerate foreign influence in elections.
Anna Luthmann (Greens): Ach so!
These fairy tales of the AfD as a supposed foreign marionette are simply untrue. Possibly you are simply envious because you yourselves scarcely still have international contacts. In short: This marionette card is in all cases the cheapest propaganda, and I am sure you will again today unpack this propaganda, because you have no arguments against the AfD and against this motion.
Sonja Lemke (Linke): We have quite
good arguments against the AfD!
In fact, this decree is an attack on the opposition and freedom of the press. Yet in turn you come along.
Ostensibly, the TTPA theme comes as so often with an apparently plausible reasoning: No influencing of elections! Yet it’s only about transparency. That this decree for transparency is not necessary is shown by the state of the social media prior to the introduction of this decree.
I myself have connected digital advertising on Facebook. I needed to quite clearly specify who financed the advertisement, needed to authenticate it with the personal statement, and much more. That was transparent, that was sufficient.
What now does the TTPA do beyond that? Expensive compliance, extremely difficult targeting, massive legal insecurity for platforms. What now exactly is political advertising? And at what point is it political advertising? – And a high risk of compensatory fines for the smallest mistakes! The result: The effective withdrawal of almost all large platforms – Meta with Facebook and Instagram, Google with YouTube. Since October 2025, political paid advertising in social media is de facto no longer possible.
And whom does that harm? Not the governing parties, not the established media houses,
Johannes Schätzel (SPD): So far from
the reality!
not ARD and ZDF. Harmed will be new parties, opposition forces, critical associations, candidates and think tanks. And yes, quite especially Germany’s strongest party, the AfD, will be harmed. Since we are present in the digital spectrum, because we enjoy no favorable, continual coverage by large publishing houses, or by public broadcasting media, like all of you here.
What thus here is in fact happening is the targeted shutdown of a political competitor under the pretense of an ostensible transparency. I say: Away with this undemocratic, junk decree of the European Union!
And if you now ask: Yes, AfD, what then is your solution for the influencing of elections? Quite simple: The fight against foreign influence is a duty of the security authorities, among others, the Federal intelligence service [BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst]. This ought to be strengthened. Since in the secret service work, we are meanwhile near completely dependent on the U.S.A. – and that because you in the area of security- and key-technologies have slumbered for years. That is your responsibility and your failure.
Nevertheless, you are especially disillusioning in this debate – and this I cannot spare you, Herr Digital Minister Wildberger – with your cabinet draft law for political advertising transparency, the national ensuing legislation for the TTPA. This draft in regards so-called advertisers, thus parties, associations, business and political candidates, expressly enables house searches and seizures on account of ostensible violations of transparency. We are here quite quickly into criminal law. Who works politically needs in the future to thereby figure that he receives a house search.
Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Such rubbish!
And just retroactively can he defend himself against that. You thereby clearly create an intimidation effect. I ask you: Is that your idea of freedom of the press and fair, democratic competition? Ours is quite clearly not.
And it becomes still worse. In regards danger in delay, house searches shall even be possible without legal writ. What may we then imagine of that? Does that mean that the successful pay videos, critical of the government, from Alice Weidel or from Nius chief Reichert are a danger in delay? The video is uploaded – danger in delay – and directly there are house searches on the initiative of the coordinating office for digital services which is controlled by the Digital Ministry? Need we imagine it?
Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Nein!
That something so is at all in a cabinet draft is incomprehensible. On this account, I say: Without delay, take back these regulations, Herr Digital Minister.
If you do not believe me: It is in black and white in §6 and §7 of the cabinet draft. I myself have again taken a peek. I yesterday questioned the minister in committee. He disputed all of these problems which I listed here, designated the criticism – by analogy – as disinformation.
Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): You too!
Johannes Schätzel (SPD): You too!
Herr Minister, here is the last opportunity to set it right.
I expect here and today a clear statement of the Federal government. Take back this cabinet draft! Or do you adhere to seizures and house search even without a judicial decree? Yes or no? It cannot be so difficult to here clearly declare.
Regardless of how the Digital Ministry positions itself, the AfD remains now and in the future the advocate for freedom.
Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Hahaha!
You can be sure of it.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
