The revelation of secret support for Social Democratic Party candidates in the 2026 election campaign raises questions about transparency and legitimacy.

According to TV2, three campaign invoices revealed that acting Minister for Immigration and Integration Rasmus Stoklund and his party colleague Fie Hækkerup (daughter of former Justice Minister Nick Hækkerup) were among Social Democratic politicians in the Danish Parliament who received support from a secret society with ties to the trade union movement and old party leaders.

The invoices showed that the politicians together received at least 86,550 Danish kroner to cover the costs of election posters and delivery services from the association.

Experts described this maneuver as a "charter trick" because it directly violates party funding laws by concealing the flow of funds to the Social Democratic Party and its candidates. By channeling the money through a charity, the party's accounts do not reflect the actual source of the funds.

Bills reveal the path of support

According to the source, Ibsens Fabrikker, a company specializing in the production of election posters, sent the three invoices to the campaign office association Foreningen Kampagnebureauet, totaling 86,550 Danish kroner.

Rasmus Stoklund received the largest amount of paid support, with bills including election posters worth 57,800 kroner, plus express delivery worth 14,375 kroner.

One of the invoices revealed that Fie Hækkerup also received express delivery services worth 14,375 kroner, paid for by the secret society.

Warning of erosion of political transparency

Anne Skorkjær Binderkrantz, a professor of political science at Aarhus University, said that party support rules were put in place to ensure that voters could track the money entering politics.

She added: “When parties like the Social Democratic Party circumvent the rules in this way, transparency disappears. This can fuel distrust of politicians among many in society. A large majority of the population wants a better view of the interests that, in different ways, play a political role,” she told TV2.

The rules of support allow for concealing the true source of funding.

The rules for party support state that if a party receives financial support exceeding 25,700 Danish kroner, the donor's name must appear in the party's accounts.

The threshold for publishing the donor's name increases slightly each year, while all parties are required to send their accounts to the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) no later than 12 months after the end of the calendar year, and the Parliament then publishes these accounts.

But when a support association is presented, the party can hide who is actually putting money into its election campaign, and simply write the association's name as the donor.

He refused to answer despite repeated attempts.

According to TV2, Fie Hækkerup and Rasmus Stoklund, despite several attempts to contact them, refused to answer why they received money from the campaign office association Foreningen Kampagnebureauet.

None of those involved were willing to defend this arrangement or explain its background.

The support does not represent the entirety of election spending.

The expenses covered by the secret society represent only a portion of the total campaign expenses of the Social Democratic politicians.

Figures from politiskreklame.dk, where political campaigns must be registered, show that Rasmus Stoklund spent 332,200 kroner on political campaigns, while Fie Hækkerup spent 112,102 kroner. These campaigns may include, for example, advertisements in local newspapers.

It was unclear whether the other large sums were also paid by the campaign office association, Foreningen Kampagnebureauet.

An association established shortly before the elections

The Campaign Office Association (Foreningen Kampagnebureauet) was founded on January 28, 2026, less than a month before the election was announced on February 24.

The association appears, on the surface, to be anonymous, as it does not have a website and there are no details about its true purpose.

A request for access to the documents revealed that the association was founded by a number of prominent former and current figures in the Social Democratic Party and the trade union movement, all of whom pay unknown sums for membership.

Prominent names within the association

Former Justice Minister and director of the Brewers' Association (Bryggeriforeningen), Nick Hækkerup, was among the co-founders of the association. He is also the father of Fie Hækkerup.

It was also co-founded by Anders Friis-Hansen, who works daily as an advisor to the head of the 3F union, Henning Overgaard, and at the same time serves as the head of the Social Democratic Party branch in the municipality of Ballerup, according to the source.

A former party advisor is the head of the association and played a role in the campaign.

The association is chaired by Dan Holt Højgaard, a long-time advisor to the Social Democratic Party and campaign manager for the Minister of Children and Education, Mattias Tesfaye.

Dan Holt Højgaard describes himself on his LinkedIn profile as a “civil society engineer,” with no formal affiliation to the Social Democratic Party.

However, the report's information indicates that he played a central role for the party in the recent election campaign, as he made several presentations to all of the party's candidates, and also served as coordinator for Mattias Tesfaye's election campaign.

Failed attempts to secure interviews

TV2 reported that journalists had been trying for several days to get an interview with Dan Holt Højgaard, Rasmus Stoklund, Fie Hækkerup and Nick Hækkerup.

But none of them responded to phone calls or text messages.

An issue that was previously a priority for the party

In 2014, the Helle Thorning-Schmidt government established an expert committee to make recommendations on amending the rules for party support.

Jørgen Albæk Jensen, professor emeritus at Aarhus University, told TV2: “At that time, the Social Democratic Party was very keen to tighten the rules, and started work to prepare a report in this area, which I helped prepare.”.

He added: “The recommendation at the time was to clearly tighten the rules in order to create transparency, but the Social Democratic Party ended up making an agreement with the VLAK government that kept very good possibilities for carrying out such tricks through associations and companies that support in secret.”.

Internal anger within the party following the association's revelations

The secret society caused internal turmoil in the Social Democratic Party after its existence was revealed in the first week of the election campaign, and more than 30 Social Democratic candidates for parliament were asked whether they had received support from it.

Four candidates responded that they had not received support from the association.

When Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was asked at a press conference during the election campaign about hidden party support, she said that “the Social Democratic Party adheres to all existing rules.”.

Criticisms emerged publicly after the elections.

A number of politicians in the Social Democratic Party expressed criticism of the secret society behind the scenes, but none of them wanted to make a statement in their own name during the election campaign.

Weeks after the election, former members of parliament Maria Durhuus, Kim Aas and Morten Klessen came out publicly and criticized the Social Democratic Party for allowing the campaign office association Foreningen Kampagnebureauet to influence the election by secretly supporting certain selected candidates with money from anonymous sponsors.

Researcher warns against influencing election results

According to the source, Ditte Shamshiri-Petersen, a lecturer in political science at Aalborg University, said that hidden support could influence the outcome of the elections.

She added: “If some candidates obtain resources that are not transparent to others, whether within the party or to voters, this could alter the competition and ultimately affect who gets enough personal votes to be elected.”.

Professor Anne Skorkjær Binderkrantz, who is also a member of the research leadership within the Magtudredningen power inquiry, which examines the state of democracy in Denmark, said: “Running an election campaign is expensive, and therefore it can become absolutely crucial which candidates receive support from an association like this.”.

The party refers to a previous response.

The Social Democratic Party was asked why it accepted support for its candidates through a secret society that experts criticize for circumventing party support rules.

The party referred to a previous written response from party secretary Lasse Ryberg, which the website received in March.

In that reply, Lasse Ryberg wrote that the party had nothing to do with the creation or management of the association.

Unanswered questions about the association's relationship with the party

The party was subsequently asked how that response was consistent with the fact that the chairman of the association frequented the party headquarters in Christiansborg (the Danish parliament building) on a daily basis, and was a point of contact and coordinator for Education Minister Mattias Tesfaye during the election campaign.

Questions were also raised about the sources from which the party receives funds, and why it is not fully transparent about the support.

The party did not respond to these questions, according to TV2.

The 3F union has refused to respond for two months.

The 3F union, represented in the secret society by senior advisor Anders Friis-Hansen, also refused for two months to answer the question of whether the union had funded the society, according to the source.

Transparency in political financing under pressure

The case puts party funding rules in Denmark under new pressure, as it reveals how an association that does not disclose its true funders can appear in the accounts as the donor, while those who actually pump money remain out of the voters' knowledge.

The bills, and the statements of political science and legal experts, raise direct questions about transparency, fair competition between candidates, and the ability of voters to know which interests fund political campaigns and influence the course of elections.