Constitutional lawyer Christoph Möller suggests that the state should investigate whether it can cut subsidies to the AfD before launching a potential party ban procedure. Speaking to the weekly newspaper “Die Zeit”, Möller stated that he views this as a serious alternative. He argued that excluding the AfD from state financing would be highly effective while simultaneously incurring fewer political risks. He believes that it is initially easier for the public to accept that the state does not need to financially support a party it deems unconstitutional.
According to Möller, the German Basic Law allows for the exclusion of a party from state funding. This exclusion covers state financing and tax benefits, though it does not affect parliamentary group funds because those mandates continue regardless of the subsidy cut. However, he emphasized that the crucial step would be a ruling by an independent court confirming that the AfD is unconstitutional. This legal determination is vital not only for funding purposes but also impacts matters such as the ability of party members to hold public service positions, a point that would significantly remove this issue from the realm of political debate.
From Möller’s perspective, an abrupt halt in funding could create incentives for both sides. He noted that for AfD opponents, this scenario could prevent them from becoming politically complacent, forcing them to continue the political debate with the party and its voters instead of simply assuming that a ban means they can ignore the party. Conversely, for the AfD itself, the financial pressure might provide an incentive to sever ties with more ethno-nationalist elements and transition into a strictly right-nationalist party.
