From the SPD, Greens, CDU to AfD – scandals as a weapon: How political cronyism is being exploited in the 2026 election campaign

When clean-minded men get dirty and morality becomes a weapon in partisan warfare

Cronyism at taxpayers' expense: The most blatant political scandals

Cronyism, nepotism, and self-enrichment have been part of the political landscape in Germany for decades. Not a single party can claim to be free of such entanglements. However, the extent, the systematic nature, and above all, the hypocrisy with which such practices are carried out and simultaneously denounced in political opponents deserve a sober and unvarnished assessment. The super election year of 2026, in particular, demonstrates that accusations of cronyism not only serve to expose wrongdoing but are also used as a tactical weapon in a ruthless power struggle. The question is not whether cronyism exists, but rather who exposes it, when and why, and whether the parties' outrage management is still proportionate to the actual severity of the misconduct.

More information here:

• How felt got its name

The AfD and the family support system

The most prominent case to date involves the AfD, which, since its founding in 2013, has presented itself as a clean alternative to the entrenched, corrupt established parties. In the winter of 2025/2026, media investigations exposed a far-reaching network of cross-employment, originating primarily in the Saxony-Anhalt state branch. The mechanism is always the same: Since it is illegal for members of parliament to employ their own family members at taxpayers' expense, relatives are placed with party colleagues. Legally, this operates in a gray area; morally, it is devastating for a party that promised an end to self-enrichment on its election posters.

The extent of the entanglement within the AfD far exceeds what could be dismissed as an isolated incident. According to an estimate by the AfD parliamentary group's executive committee, up to 72 of the 151 members of parliament could be directly or indirectly involved in cross-employment arrangements. The father of Saxony-Anhalt's lead candidate, Ulrich Siegmund, receives €7,725 per month in taxpayer money for his work in the office of Bundestag member Thomas Korell. Three siblings of state parliament member Tobias Rausch work for Bundestag member Claudia Weiss, whose daughter, in turn, works for the AfD state parliamentary group. Rausch's wife earns €6,000 gross per month as an office clerk from the parliamentary group's budget and has been taken on several delegation trips, including a trip to New York and Washington, which was referred to within the party as a honeymoon.

Even the party leadership is not spared. AfD leader Tino Chrupalla employs the wife of a Saxon state parliament member in his constituency office. In Lower Saxony, MEP Anja Arndt accuses state chairman Ansgar Schledde of a patronage cartel and a regime of terror, as his current wife is employed by a member of the Bundestag and his ex-wife works for the state parliamentary group. In Thuringia, it was revealed that the husband of parliamentary managing director Wiebke Muhsal is employed as a research assistant by an AfD member of the Bundestag, a particularly explosive revelation given that the Thuringian AfD had previously positioned itself as a staunch critic of such cross-employment. Muhsal herself was fined in 2017 for forgery in connection with a backdated employment contract.

Chancellor Friedrich Merz described the AfD as characterized by deeply entrenched cronyism and patronage, and promised stricter legislation. Panic reigns within the party. Stefan Möller, co-chairman of the Thuringian state branch, admitted that the appointments were a problem for the party's credibility. AfD deputy chairman Stephan Brandner, on the other hand, speaks of a smear campaign by the established parties. Political scientist Marcel Lewandowsky sees a deeper logic: Contempt for democratic processes and practices is part of the party's ideological core, which is why it is not at all surprising that the AfD also disregards standard procedures when filling positions.

The interplay between the State Chancellery and the agency world within the SPD

Simultaneously with the AfD scandal, the SPD Minister-President of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Manuela Schwesig, also came under pressure. Her new personal spokesperson, Lilly Blaudszun, 24 years old, has been working as a Senior Associate for the PR agency 365 Sherpas since 2024. This same agency received approximately €60,000 from the State Chancellery for public relations between 2022 and 2025, including for communications support during the affair surrounding the Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania Climate Protection Foundation and the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. Particularly explosive: the contracts were awarded without competitive bidding or tendering.

The Federation of Taxpayers sees this arrangement as at least a gray area. State chairman Sascha Mummenhoff criticized the fact that the Minister-President's personal campaign spokesperson also works for an agency that was supplied with lucrative contracts by the Minister-President herself, from the State Chancellery. The line between official duties and party affiliation becomes blurred when personal and communication networks seamlessly extend into the election campaign.

The state government rejected the accusations. Government spokesman Andreas Timm explained that the consulting contract with 365 Sherpas was clearly defined and awarded before Blaudszun began working for the agency, thus ruling out any connection. Furthermore, Blaudszun's appointment was a decision made by the SPD state association, not the state chancellery. The online government portal was also redesigned by a sister company of the same corporate group, the Hirschen Group, with the contract being tendered Europe-wide and awarded based on the most economically advantageous offer.

From an analytical perspective, this case does indeed occupy a gray area. The chronology initially argues against a causal link: the State Chancellery commissioned the agency before Blaudszun started working there. Nevertheless, the dual role creates a network that at least gives the appearance of a problematic entanglement. Whether this constitutes genuine cronyism or a constellation correctly classified as a gray area by the Taxpayers Association depends on whether the dual function was deliberately constructed or arose by chance.

The Greens between climate morality and cronyism

The Green Party came under massive pressure in 2023 when the so-called "best man affair" rocked Robert Habeck's Ministry of Economic Affairs. State Secretary Patrick Graichen was a member of a selection committee that nominated his best man, Michael Schäfer, for the top job at the German Energy Agency without disclosing the obvious conflict of interest. After it became known that Graichen had also approved funding for a climate protection initiative project in which his sister sat on the board of the beneficiary organization, Habeck was forced to place him on temporary leave. Habeck cited too many accumulated mistakes.

The case was particularly painful for the Greens, as the party traditionally positions itself as a champion of transparency and against corruption. The anti-corruption organization Lobbycontrol criticized Graichen for failing to uphold the high standards of integrity and independence required when filling a government position. Many Greens who had known each other for a long time worked in Habeck's circle: Graichen's sister Verena was married to Parliamentary State Secretary Michael Kellner, and his brother Jakob also worked at the Öko-Institut (Institute for Applied Ecology), which was partly funded by government contracts. "Green cronyism, of all places, in the party that, in the eyes of its critics, so readily portrays itself as a moral authority," commented the Tagesschau news program.

Another case has emerged in North Rhine-Westphalia. The Green Party's Justice Minister, Benjamin Limbach, was accused of favoring a personal acquaintance and former colleague in the appointment of a new president of the Higher Administrative Court. The Münster Administrative Court initially described the process as manipulative. However, the Higher Administrative Court later exonerated Limbach and declared the appointment lawful. This case exemplifies how quickly an initial suspicion can escalate into a scandal that, upon closer legal examination, proves to be significantly less serious than initially portrayed.

In addition, the funding of a documentary about Robert Habeck's failed election campaign in 2025 attracted attention, with €75,000 flowing from the NRW film fund. The head of the funding department lived with the producer involved, whose productions had received at least €13 million in subsidies since 2011. Whether this constituted an unjustified preferential treatment or whether the producer's professional qualifications explained the repeated funding remained largely unresolved in the public debate.

The CDU and CSU as a historical crony power

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU) have a long history of corruption scandals that far surpass the current allegations against the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in their systematic nature and financial scale. The Flick Affair of the 1980s, in which approximately 225.9 million DM flowed to the CDU/CSU via the Civic Association, was the first major corruption scandal in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany. The slush fund scandal under Helmut Kohl, uncovered in 1999 and involving illegal party donations, undeclared accounts, and covert transfers, shook the party to its core and led to the resignation of Wolfgang Schäuble.

The mask scandal during the coronavirus pandemic revealed a particularly cynical form of self-enrichment. CDU member of parliament Nikolas Löbel earned €250,000 in commissions through mask deals, CSU politician Georg Nüßlein is alleged to have received €660,000 in fees, and Alfred Sauter faced accusations of embezzlement amounting to €1.2 million. Andrea Tandler, daughter of former CSU politician Gerold Tandler, earned millions through mask sales and was convicted of tax evasion. CDU member of parliament Philipp Amthor accepted stock options and a directorship at the US company Augustus Intelligence in exchange for parliamentary support.

The Bavarian nepotism scandal of 2013 is the direct historical precursor to the AfD's current practice of cross-employment. In the Bavarian State Parliament, 79 members of parliament, including 56 from the CSU and 21 from the SPD, exploited a transitional provision to continue employing relatives and spouses at public expense, even after a general ban had been imposed. Ministers and state secretaries had paid their wives salaries of between €500 and €1,000 net per month, sometimes for years. A study by LMU Munich and the University of Mannheim demonstrated that the affected members of parliament were measurably punished by voters in the 2013 state election, even though the CSU ultimately won an absolute majority. Bavaria subsequently drew its conclusions and comprehensively banned cross-employment up to the fourth degree of kinship, a model that is now being discussed as a blueprint for a nationwide regulation.

The consultant scandal under Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, in which external consulting contracts worth around 600 million euros were awarded without a transparent tender process, and the toll scandal under Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer, who wasted 243 million euros of taxpayers' money, complete the picture of a party that truly doesn't have to hide behind others when it comes to cronyism and waste.

The FDP and discreet promotion among friends

The FDP was not immune to accusations of cronyism either. In June 2023, it became known that Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner had promoted the wife of his party colleague and Justice Minister Marco Buschmann to head of department in his ministry. CSU General Secretary Martin Huber subsequently demanded clarification and criticized the coalition government, arguing that its promotion policy gave the impression of nepotism. The Finance Ministry stated that its leadership had not been involved in the selection process.

In February 2024, Transport Minister Volker Wissing was forced to dismiss a department head in his ministry with immediate effect after irregularities in the awarding of funding for a hydrogen project came to light. Emails released to the magazine Spiegel under the Freedom of Information Act revealed significant inconsistencies and contradictions, including impermissible personal contact with applicants during ongoing approval processes.

The Left and the network of relationships among party celebrities

Within the Left Party, the case of Ralph Thomas Niemeyer, Sahra Wagenknecht's ex-husband, caused particular controversy. Female members of the party's parliament had funneled him contracts, fees, and advances while he simultaneously faced significant problems with creditors and the justice system. Among other things, he produced a film for the Left Party during his marriage to Wagenknecht, for which he received a total of €20,413. His network of connections extended to virtually the entire party leadership, from Gregor Gysi and Katja Kipping to Bernd Riexinger. The party, which had advertised itself with the slogan "guaranteed cronyism-free," had to face the question of whether its own personnel truly lived up to this claim.

Our EU and German expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus areas: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More information here:

• Expert Business Hub

A thematic hub offering insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform covering global and regional economies, innovation and industry-specific trends
• A collection of analyses, insights, and background information from our key areas of focus
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• A hub for companies seeking information on markets, digitalization, and industry innovations

The dividing line between cronyism and political normality

The crucial analytical question is: What is truly cronyism, and what is merely the result of normal political networking that, upon closer inspection, appears less scandalous than it initially seemed in the headlines? This assessment requires nuanced criteria.

Genuine nepotism exists when personal relationships are systematically exploited to secure financial advantages from public funds for oneself or close associates, especially when qualifications play no role. By this strict standard, the cross-employment within the AfD is a clear case of systemic cronyism: the sheer number of cases, the familial entanglements, and the sometimes lavish salaries for obviously party-related activities speak volumes. The admission by the First Parliamentary Secretary, Bernd Baumann, that they have recruitment problems and cannot fill 71 of 200 positions externally, explains the phenomenon, but does not justify it.

The Graichen affair within the Green Party also falls into the category of genuine cronyism: A high-ranking official conceals an obvious conflict of interest in a personnel decision and approves subsidies that benefit an organization where his sister is a board member. The CDU/CSU mask affair goes even further, reaching the level of criminally relevant enrichment.

The Blaudszun/Schwesig case, however, lies in a gray area from an analytical perspective. The timeline, the fact that the contract was awarded before Blaudszun's employment at the agency, and the Europe-wide tendering process for the portal project to a sister company all argue against the accusation of deliberate cronyism. Nevertheless, the personnel entanglements between the State Chancellery, the election campaign, and the agency create a problematic appearance that is politically damaging, even if it may not be legally objectionable.

Scandals as a weapon in election campaigns

The clustering of revelations before elections is no coincidence. In the super election year of 2026, with five state elections, the scandal-mongering reaches a peak that serves a political purpose. Chancellor Merz uses the AfD affair to portray the party as morally discredited and to demand stricter laws that would increase pressure on its members. The AfD, in turn, attempts to use the Blaudszun case against the SPD to distract from its own problems.

This pattern is not new. In 2023, the CDU used the Graichen affair to discredit the Greens' entire energy policy and to force Graichen to appear before the Economic Affairs Committee. At the same time, the CDU itself had recently been embroiled in the mask scandal. This double standard is less an individual failing than a structural characteristic of political competition: every party is aware of its own shortcomings but prefers to sensationalize those of its opponents.

Political scientist Wolfgang Schroeder sees a twofold problem in the AfD affair: an image problem, because the party accuses its political opponents of precisely what it itself engages in, and an internal conflict between those who instrumentalize external criticism for internal power struggles. The fact that the entire scandal was triggered by an internal power struggle in Saxony-Anhalt shows that it was not investigative journalism, but rather internal party revenge that was the real driving force behind the revelations.

The political parties' corruption record in comparison

A comparison of the allegations of cronyism against the German political parties reveals a nuanced picture. The AfD is accused of systematically employing family members at taxpayers' expense, which is considered blatant nepotism on a large scale and is particularly damaging to the party's credibility given its self-proclaimed anti-cronyism image. As a consequence, a change to the party statutes and expulsion proceedings against MP Schmidt are planned.

Within the SPD, a personnel connection between the State Chancellery and a campaign agency is under scrutiny in the Blaudszun case. This is considered a gray area, as the timeline, while suggesting otherwise, does not point to deliberate cronyism, but it does create a problematic impression. The party rejected the allegations, and there were no personnel consequences.

The Greens were confronted with the best man affair involving State Secretary Graichen, the Limbach affair in North Rhine-Westphalia, and the funding scandal surrounding a Habeck documentary. The Graichen case was assessed as a clear conflict of interest and led to his dismissal, while Judge Limbach was legally exonerated and remained in office.

The CDU/CSU is historically associated with the largest scale of corruption and cronyism, including the mask affair, donation scandals, the Flick affair, the consultant affair, and the Amthor lobbying case. While this led to some resignations and convictions, structural reforms remained minimal.

Within the FDP, isolated incidents without any discernible pattern were identified, such as the promotion of Justice Minister Buschmann's wife and a department head appointed by Transport Minister Wissing. While the Finance Ministry rejected the accusations, Wissing dismissed the department head in question.

The Left Party is accused of classic cronyism on a small scale, for example in connection with the network of relationships of politician Niemeyer and contracts awarded by prominent party members to confidants. No discernible consequences have erupted.

Why the outrage spiral affects everyone and helps no one

The central finding of this analysis is that political cronyism is a structural problem that transcends party lines, not a characteristic unique to any one political faction. The Bavarian nepotism scandal involved 79 members of parliament from virtually all parties. The AfD's practice of cross-employment follows the same pattern that made headlines in Bavaria in 2013 and which could only be ended there by a comprehensive ban on relationships up to the fourth degree of kinship.

The real scandal is multifaceted. On the first level, it lies in the specific transgressions themselves: Anyone who misappropriates taxpayers' money, subsidizes family networks at the public's expense, or conceals conflicts of interest is acting against the public good. On the second level, it lies in the hypocrisy: The AfD, which for years denounced the cronyism of the established parties, engages in it on an even larger scale, according to its own parliamentary group's own assessment. The Greens, who see themselves as a party of transparency, coined the term "green cronyism" with the Graichen affair. The CDU/CSU, which attacked Habeck for nepotism, has a significantly more serious transgression in its own history with the mask affair.

On the third level, the scandal lies in the selective outrage management of the media and political parties. Strong parties with better media connections can more effectively sensationalize their opponents' scandals and have their own misdeeds handled more quietly. The question of whose cronyism is exposed before an election and whose is swept under the rug is not merely a journalistic matter, but a profoundly power-political decision. In a system where absolute infallibility is impossible, potentially any party can be burdened with accusations of cronyism at any time. It all comes down to who throws the first stone and whether the media distribute the stones evenly among all glass houses.

The current debate about tightening laws to prevent cross-employment would be the only constructive consequence. Bavaria demonstrated in 2013 that it is possible. It is time to introduce this regulation nationwide and thus engage in a more honest approach than the constant accusations of cronyism in all directions allow. Ultimately, it is not the individual scandal that damages the political system most, but rather the collective realization among citizens that morality in politics is only upheld when it conveniently covers up one's own misdeeds.

When comrades forge networks, the boundaries between party, state, and media have always become blurred

The Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) is the oldest democratic party in the country, and its propensity for those structures known in political parlance as cronyism is just as old. Anyone examining the history of the SPD will encounter a pattern that stretches back decades: from the local political level, where party donations are exchanged for public contracts, to the state level, where personnel decisions are made based on party affiliation rather than competence, all the way up to its entanglements with public broadcasting, where journalistic independence and political proximity are dangerously at odds. It is a system that has reproduced itself over generations and whose overall impact extends far beyond isolated transgressions.

Frankfurt's red swamp: How the scum got its name

The genealogy of the SPD's cronyism can be traced back to the early 1970s, when Frankfurt's mayor, Rudi Arndt, accepted a cash donation of 200,000 DM from Lebanese businessman Albert Abela. The timing was revealing: Abela had previously applied for a concession to operate underground parking garages at Frankfurt Airport, and the airport's supervisory board, dominated by SPD representatives, approved the deal. At the same time, Arndt received a total of 1.2 million DM in party donations from Berlin construction entrepreneur Karsten Klingbeil, who also benefited from decisions made by the airport's supervisory board. The scandal was further compounded when the public prosecutor's office, under the jurisdiction of the SPD-controlled Hessian Ministry of Justice, failed to initiate criminal proceedings. The CDU opposition first used the term "red cronyism" at that time, a term that would become a permanent fixture in political vocabulary. The reckoning came in the 1977 local elections, when the SPD suffered massive losses and lost its majority in the Römer (Frankfurt City Hall).

Cologne cronyism: slush funds, Swiss accounts and a criminal network

What transpired in Cologne between 1994 and 1999 dwarfed even the Frankfurt affair. The Cologne donations scandal, which centered on the construction of the waste incineration plant in the Niehl district, revealed a veritable criminal system within the Cologne SPD (Social Democratic Party). SPD parliamentary group leader Norbert Rüther and treasurer Manfred Biciste funneled large donations, which were subject to disclosure requirements, into the party coffers using falsified receipts. During his interrogation, Rüther admitted to having accepted 30 to 35 so-called "thank you" donations from companies that had previously received city contracts. Furthermore, Rüther stated that the Cologne SPD had maintained slush funds since the 1970s.

The scale of the scandal was enormous: at least 33 million marks flowed into Swiss bank accounts, of which 511,000 marks were demonstrably transferred to the Cologne SPD. Investigations were launched against 42 Cologne SPD members, and the state executive committee initiated arbitration proceedings against 30 of them, which could result in expulsion from the party. In 2008, local politicians Heugel and Rüther were both given suspended prison sentences for bribery. The waste management entrepreneur Hellmut Trienekens, who was at the center of the network, operated unethically not only in Cologne. Der Spiegel spoke of a criminal cronyism system within the SPD and demonstrated that the system extended to Wuppertal, Recklinghausen, and other cities in North Rhine-Westphalia.

Wuppertal and the biggest corruption scandal in history

Parallel to the Cologne affair, the Wuppertal SPD also came under investigation. In connection with a real estate scandal, a structural engineer and a construction contractor had donated 180,000 and 250,000 marks, respectively, to the SPD in 1999. The responsible senior public prosecutor, Alfons Grevener, uttered a sentence at the time that underscored the full extent of the cronyism throughout North Rhine-Westphalia: He declared that they were facing the biggest corruption scandal in German history. Mayor Hans Kremendahl was under suspicion of corruption but escaped a recall election because the SPD faction in the city council blocked the required two-thirds majority. The national SPD reacted with demonstrative outrage. General Secretary Franz Müntefering asserted that he had been unaware of the events and spoke of the criminal intent required to circumvent the law in this way. Federal Justice Minister Herta Däubler-Gmelin called the events outrageous and incomprehensible. The distancing was reflexive, but the system continued.

Hamburg: From social welfare cronyism to the Cum-Ex complex

Hamburg is a special case in the history of SPD cronyism because the entanglements there layered themselves over decades and constantly took on new forms. As early as the late 1990s, the CDU established a parliamentary inquiry committee with the telling title "PUA Filz" (Inquiry Committee on Cronyism), intended to uncover the machinations within the Social Democratic-dominated bureaucracy. The trigger was the case of SPD Senator Helgrit Fischer-Menzel, who had hijacked a tendering process for the therapy of alcoholics and awarded the multi-million-euro contract to a foundation whose managing director was her own husband. She resigned in 1998, but the inquiry committee uncovered far more: a personal, financial, and structural web of cronyism, described as a lawless space woven from perversion of justice and violations of the law, incompetence, and nepotism.

Two decades later, the Hamburg SPD's cronyism reached a new level when the Cum-Ex scandal surrounding Warburg Bank came to light. The then-Mayor, Olaf Scholz, met at least three times with Warburg CEO Christian Olearius, who was already under investigation for serious tax evasion. Subsequently, the City of Hamburg initially waived its claim for the return of 47 million euros in fraudulently obtained tax money. Former SPD member of parliament Johannes Kahrs, who acted as an intermediary between the bank and politicians, was found in a bank safe deposit box during a raid, with more than 200,000 euros of unknown origin. Investigative journalist Oliver Schröm of the Hamburg-based newspaper Die Zeit attested to the case's exposure to an SPD network extending into the judiciary, protecting the politicians involved. Scholz himself, who had always promised full transparency, stood out before investigative committees due to serial memory lapses, only admitted meetings with Olearius when diary entries by the banker irrefutably proved them, and left unmentioned a possible further meeting with Kahrs, which may have taken place just one day before sensitive media inquiries on the subject.

The Saarland: Where the comrades keep to themselves

Saarland is considered a prime example of what happens when a single party permeates power structures for decades. The SPD, which governed the state with an absolute majority under Oskar Lafontaine from 1985 to 1999 and has governed alone again since 2022 under Anke Rehlinger, has created a network in which party, state, and economic interests are virtually indistinguishable. CDU state chairman Stephan Toscani aptly described the situation as pure party politics and cronyism, a diagnosis supported by concrete examples.

In Neunkirchen, the public transport company NVG paid €5,000 in cash for an SPD (Social Democratic Party) event organized by the local SPD chairman, who was also the NVG's works council chairman, while the SPD mayor sat on the company's supervisory board. This payment violated the Political Parties Act in two ways: cash donations exceeding €1,000 are prohibited, and publicly owned companies are not allowed to make any party donations at all. In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, where the SPD also has a strong presence, the public prosecutor's office investigated State Secretary of the Interior Wolfgang Schmülling and his protégé Andreas Walus in 2025 on suspicion of embezzlement in connection with €430,000 in funds allocated for COVID-19 face masks. The audacity of the case lay in the fact that Schmülling promoted his subordinate twice despite the ongoing investigation, unilaterally upgrading his performance evaluation from "good" to "very good." The public prosecutor's office had to request investigators from Brandenburg because it lacked confidence in its own police force in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

Media corruption: When the broadcaster becomes a mouthpiece

The SPD's entanglements with public broadcasting constitute a separate chapter of the "red cronyism" that is particularly problematic because it undermines the democratic oversight function of the media. In 2022, nine employees at the NDR state broadcasting center in Schleswig-Holstein confidentially reported on political filters in news coverage. They stated that managers acted like ministry press officers, critical reports were downplayed or suppressed, and a climate of fear prevailed in the newsroom. Particularly disturbing was the revelation that senior editors affectionately referred to CDU Minister-President Daniel Günther as "Daniel" and apparently coveted the position of government spokesperson. The Berliner Zeitung diagnosed a dangerously close relationship with political power in the executive suites of the broadcasting corporations.

A case from 2023, uncovered by Cicero magazine, pointed even more directly to SPD entanglements: An NDR journalist profiled Chancellor Olaf Scholz and simultaneously submitted research requests regarding the Cum-Ex scandal, without disclosing that she was the partner of a Hamburg SPD politician. This SPD politician, in turn, was a close friend and former roommate of Scholz. Former Bundestag member Fabio De Masi, who played a key role in investigating the Cum-Ex scandal, criticized the fact that it would have been objectively appropriate to forgo the profile or at least disclose the personal connection. NDR Director General Joachim Knuth and Head of Programming Ilka Steinhausen, however, failed to make the connection transparent. This case exemplifies how personal connections between the SPD and public broadcasting can undermine journalistic independence, even if no direct influence can be proven in a specific instance.

The Blaudszun Affair: When Party, Agency and State Chancellery Merge

The fact that cronyism within the SPD is still alive and well is demonstrated by the case of Lilly Blaudszun in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The 24-year-old was hired in 2026 as the personal spokesperson for Minister-President Manuela Schwesig and head of communications for the SPD, even though she was simultaneously working as a senior associate for the PR agency 365 Sherpas. This very agency had received approximately €60,000 in contracts from the State Chancellery between 2022 and 2025, awarded directly and without a public tender. The Federation of Taxpayers sharply criticized this appointment: the Minister-President's personal campaign spokesperson was working concurrently for an agency that had been supplied with lucrative contracts by the Minister-President herself, operating from within the State Chancellery. Government spokesperson Andreas Timm dismissed the accusations as far-fetched, arguing that the agency contracts had been awarded before Blaudszun's employment. But the Federation of Taxpayers raised the more fundamental question of whether political power, public contracts, and party-political election campaigns are too closely intertwined. It's a question that runs like a red thread, or more accurately, a red web, through the entire history of the SPD.

The anatomy of a system: Why the red felt keeps reproducing itself

What distinguishes the SPD from other parties is not the existence of individual scandals, because those exist everywhere, but the structural depth of its entanglements. For decades, the Social Democrats have built a system in their strongholds where party membership grants access to public office, supervisory board positions, media influence, and economic advantages. The Cologne cronyism scandal was not an isolated incident, but rather the expression of a network that had grown since the 1970s, as Rüther himself admitted. The Hamburg cronyism scandal was not an isolated case, but a web cultivated over generations in politics, administration, and the judiciary. Saarland is not an anomaly, but demonstrates what happens when a party permeates the entire infrastructure of a country.

The pattern becomes particularly explosive where it touches upon media control. The appointment of broadcasting council members according to party affiliation, the personal connections between SPD politicians and NDR journalists, and the documented attempts to filter critical reporting demonstrate that the SPD's cronyism has permeated not only the state but also those institutions that are supposed to act as a corrective. When the media outlets meant to expose this cronyism are themselves part of the network, the democratic system lacks a crucial check and balance. The finding is uncomfortable, but empirically well-supported: the red cronyism is not a historical relic, but a living system that reproduces itself in new forms with each generation.