The European Commission has launched a rule of law infringement procedure against Hungary—again. This time, it is challenging the country’s recently adopted ‘Defense of Sovereignty’ law that is meant to curb foreign election interference—similarly to an EU bill that’s currently in the works.
The Defense of Sovereignty law was adopted late last year and was proposed by the government as a direct response to the united opposition parties’ foreign financing scandal during the 2022 parliamentary election, prior to which they received over $10 million in covert campaign contributions from U.S. organizations with links to the Democratic Party. Foreign financing of political campaigns has been illegal in Hungary since 1989, but the opposition tried circumventing the law by using intermediary organizations—friendly NGOs and shady accounting firms—to cover their tracks, badly. The parties claimed they got the money from individual “microdonations” even though the evidence was clear they had not, as the courts later established.
The bill, therefore, is meant to complement the electoral law by establishing certain instruments to avoid the same thing happening again. It creates an independent government body tasked with investigating the activities of political candidates and organizations financing them, as well as organizations engaging in influencing electoral outcomes in cases where there is a suspicion of involvement of foreign interference. This newly created office would create annual reports and prepare recommendations for the government which then could refer each case to the courts to determine unlawfulness and potential subsequent punitive measures.
The decision for the EU’s infringement procedure was published on Wednesday, February 7th. In it, the Commission parrots the faulty arguments of leftist NGOs that have been criticizing the law by saying that it could be used to silence opposition voices. According to the ruling, the law breaks several EU rules and principles, including the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, the electoral rights of citizens, as well as the ‘democratic values’ of the EU.
Even before the law was adopted, the most prolific critic of the bill was the U.S. embassy in Budapest, and in particular, Ambassador David Pressman. The less-than-diplomatic Pressman said the law was more destructive to democracy than the Russian version—when in reality, it’s significantly softer than the U.S.’ similar Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which, incidentally, was the Hungarian bill’s primary inspiration.
What’s even more ironic—given Wednesday’s decision by the European Commission to launch the infringement procedure—is that the EU is also finalizing its own FARA-equivalent, the Defense of Democracy package, which will require all foreign-funded NGOs operating in Europe to disclose their finances to make it easier to spot foreign political influence and paid disinformation.
But, apparently, the same thing is a breach of EU norms when Budapest does it. Even when it has every reason to protect its democracy from interference, and when the majority of the population supports the new measures.
Apart from the U.S.—whose motivation to attack the law is clear as day after the 2022 scandal—the EU might also have skin in the game. Last year, investigative journalists revealed that a Commission-run aid scheme called the Citizens, Equality, Rights, and Values (CERV) program disproportionately provided hundreds of millions of euros in funding for NGOs in Hungary that are openly against the government and its policies.
“EU taxpayers’ money is being used to finance political activists that are taking action against democratically elected governments. It’s simply astonishing,” MEP Tamás Deutch commented to The European Conservative after the revelations.
Naturally, Brussels knows perfectly well that it can’t attack Budapest for cracking down on foreign financing of political campaigns directly—as it is illegal in nearly every country—so it chooses the “freedom of expression” angle as a good marketing strategy instead.
According to international NGOs who admit that the law does not mention media organizations explicitly, the text does allow the Office for Defense of Sovereignty to look into the finances of media outlets, too, if it thinks they have received funds from foreign actors interested in influencing electoral outcomes. This could, in theory, disincentivize opposition journalists from speaking their minds—hence the alleged violation of freedom of expression.
Again, if there was no foul play whatsoever, then no one would be concerned. Everyone is allowed to write whatever they wish as long as journalism is not co-opted by foreign “donors” to influence elections. Incidentally, a recent competition backed by EU and American funds, and directly overseen by the U.S. Embassy, awarded nearly €300,000 to Hungarian media organizations, the vast majority of which were hardcore opposition papers.
The age-old joke comes to mind: Why wasn’t there a color revolution in Washington yet? Because there’s no American embassy there.
The relentless attack on the Defense of Sovereignty bill should be enough to justify the law in any country, even more so in Hungary.
In any case, the Commission’s decision gives Hungary two months to send a formal reply addressing the grievances identified within the law. After that, Brussels can take the next step and publish a more thorough report, followed by another long legal procedure that may or may not end in any concrete sanctions.
At least Budapest seems to be used to it. Balázs Orbán, the prime minister’s political director, took a cynical jab at the news by posting a screenshot from Politico and crossing out a word in the title: “EU to take action against Hungary’s sovereignty.”
