Icon: enlarge
Union faction leader Brinkhaus (r.) And CSU regional group leader Dobrindt
Photo:
Bernd von Jutrczenka / picture alliance / dpa
Is there more?
The question speaks of distrust of one's own people, but the Union parliamentary group leader Ralph Brinkhaus and CSU regional group leader Alexander Dobrindt have to ask this question these days.
Of necessity.
Brinkhaus and Dobrindt have no other choice after the cases of the former CSU parliamentarian Georg Nüßlein and the ex-CDU member Nikolas Löbel, who paid six-figure sums for the placement of mask orders.
Suddenly a whole parliamentary group is under a kind of general public suspicion - especially since there is still the case of the CDU MP Axel Fischer.
It was also announced last week that he was being investigated for taking money from Azerbaijan.
In the past, his party colleague and parliamentary group colleague Katrin Strenz had to pay a fine imposed by the Bundestag for such misconduct.
In the CDU in particular, there is pure panic, because the timing could not be less favorable a few days before the state elections in Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate.
For a long time, chances of conquering the state chancelleries were expected in both countries.
Most recently, however, the CDU's polls have already fallen in the southwest, and the latest negative headlines are now likely to destroy hopes for good.
Icon: enlarge
Scandal at the wrong time: CDU boss Laschet
Photo: Christoph Reichwein / imago images
For the new CDU party leader Armin Laschet, the mask scandal also comes at an absolutely inopportune time: In the coming weeks he wanted to calmly clarify the path to the candidacy for chancellor with CSU boss Markus Söder - instead, he is now in demand as a crisis manager on his own behalf.
In addition, there is concern that the affair will permanently shake people's trust in the Union, also with a view to the Bundestag election.
So the motto in the Union is now: forward defense through education and transparency.
To clean the table - that is suddenly demanded by almost all top people in the Christian Democrats and CSU.
But how credible is that when the Union parliamentary group has slowed down in the struggle for an effective lobby register and transparent regulation of secondary activities?
In any case, there is great distrust in the SPD coalition partner and in the opposition parties.
Recently there was even talk of a committee of inquiry.
Union slowed down on lobby registers
The Greens, the FDP and the Left had already campaigned for a lobby register.
In the SPD and Union, such a register did not make it into the coalition agreement; in the course of the legislative period, the Social Democrats enforced it against fierce opposition from their government partner.
For months there was an argument about whether lobbyists would publish their names and companies when they make representations to ministries and members of parliament.
Only last week - after the Nüßlein case became known - the Union gave in.
SPD plans for an »executive footprint«, in which all lobbying influence on a law should be collected, did not fail because of the Union, as did a more detailed publication requirement for secondary activities.
There is now concern across the parliamentary groups that everything will now be lumped into one pot: the fact that MPs take care of contacts with companies in their constituencies is perfectly fine, according to the groups.
Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) even explicitly asked parliamentarians to help with the procurement of masks.
The Nüßlein and Löbel cases are about something different: The CDU MP Löbel claims to have received 250,000 euros in commission for his mediation, while the consulting firm run by CSU colleague Nüßlein is said to have earned 660,000 euros in commissions.
The Minister of Health has now had a list of those parliamentarians compiled and handed over to the Bundestag who had reported in his house about masks, the parliament should decide how to deal with the names.
However, the problematic union cases have also led the other groups to take a closer look at their own people.
In the SPD parliamentary group, there was no systematic query as to whether social democratic MPs could have earned themselves in mask deals - but there were many internal discussions, according to the parliamentary group.
For the parliamentary managing director Carsten Schneider, this is enough to deny comparable cases with the SPD.
"Doing business with the crisis is out of the question," Schneider told SPIEGEL.
"I can rule out something like that for the SPD parliamentary group."
In response to the mask affair, the Social Democrats are calling for tightening legislation.
"The proposals of the CDU / CSU parliamentary group for a non-binding voluntary commitment are not sufficient," said Schneider.
"In the short term, we will present concrete proposals for general, binding and sanctions-approved tightening of criminal law, the existing transparency rules and for the lobby register and introduce them into talks with the Union." The talks must show "whether the eloquent announcements by Laschet and Söder resilient «.
The FDP also asked within its own ranks
As a precaution, the parliamentary leader of the FDP faction, Marco Buschmann, asked his MPs about comparable cases.
"Comparable means that amounts of money or other benefits would have flowed to members of parliament," Buschmann told SPIEGEL.
"According to our colleagues, that was not the case."
Only this much came out of the request to the 80-member parliamentary group: An FDP MP helped four hospitals with the procurement of masks.
"He didn't take a cent for this, helped in great need and acted purely altruistically," says Buschmann.
If the Ministry of Health wants to publish a list of all contacts of members of parliament for mask mediation, one must "differentiate clearly," said the FDP politician.
Because it is not decisive whether someone has helped to get masks.
"What matters is whether he or she wanted to earn money as a member of the crisis," explains Buschmann.
The Greens do not expect that there could have been similar cases of enrichment, but they cannot rule them out with absolute certainty.
Group manager Britta Haßelmann warns against drawing conclusions from the Union's mask affair on the entire house: "Our MPs know the rules and know that they are not allowed to receive anything in return for representing certain interests."
In addition to a "prohibition of paid lobbying", Haßelmann also calls for stricter rules for secondary employment by members of parliament, party sponsorship and party financing.
She does not consider the voluntary code of conduct proposed by the Union to be sufficient.
This could "not replace legal rules, at most supplement them".
You definitely have nothing to do with dirty mask shops, say the left-wing parliamentary group.
On Tuesday lunchtime, their parliamentary director Jan Korte also asked all MPs by email whether someone had recommended mask manufacturers to the government, whether paid or unpaid.
Group vice-chairman Caren Lay is convinced that the Union has a "structural problem with business-related secondary activities by MPs and lobbying".
This is exactly what the CDU and CSU now want to try to refute.
Icon: The mirror