Democratic Party faces conflict-of-interest allegations over election law amendment

Home > Opinion > Columns

Democratic Party faces conflict-of-interest allegations over election law amendment

Published: 16 May. 2025, 00:03

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

Kim Jung-ha

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The Democratic Party of Korea pushed a controversial amendment to the Public Official Election Act through the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Committee earlier this week. The revision removes the requirement of a “specific act” in defining the offense of spreading false information during an election. If passed in a plenary session, the amendment could have a direct impact on Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung’s pending legal case, potentially leading to its dismissal.

A large photo of Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung is displayed on the outer wall of the party headquarters in Yeouido, Seoul, on May 12, the first day of official campaigning for the 21st presidential election. [YONHAP]

Lee was found guilty by the Supreme Court earlier this month in a case involving election law violations, which has now been remanded for retrial. But if the specific provision under which he was indicted is struck from law, the legal basis for further proceedings may vanish altogether. Even without the amendment, a conviction would not necessarily affect Lee’s presidency, should he win the June 3 election. If judicial procedures threaten the administration, the Democratic Party (DP) could resort to retaliatory measures such as impeaching the presiding judge — a move not entirely unthinkable, given the party’s recent drive to establish a special counsel investigation targeting Supreme Court Chief Justice Jo Hee-de.

This raises the question: Why would the DP risk public backlash and accusations of tailor-made legislation to revise the election law now? While many observers interpret the move through the lens of the current presidential race, the party appears to be looking further ahead — to a future Lee administration and beyond.

A parliamentary subcommittee under the Legislation and Judiciary Committee convenes a meeting at the National Assembly in western Seoul on Feb. 24. [NEWS1]

Even if Lee is elected, the statute of limitations for his case will extend until June 2030. Legal proceedings, though paused during his presidency, would resume once he leaves office. At that point, a conviction — even if it results only in a suspended sentence — would increase the number of criminal convictions in Lee’s record, with limited political cost. A monetary fine would be paid and politically dismissed. The stakes are higher for the DP.

Under Article 265-2 of the current election law, if a presidential candidate is convicted and receives a fine of 1 million won or more — rendering the election void — the political party that endorsed the candidate must return all state campaign reimbursements. In 2022, the DP received 43.4 billion won ($31.7 million) in state funding for the presidential election. If the court later invalidates Lee’s election, the party could be legally required to return the entire amount. This could bankrupt the party or force it to sell its headquarter building.

To pre-empt this risk, the party appears to be pursuing a swift legislative solution during the early days of a potential Lee administration. Observers speculate that if Lee wins, the amendment will be passed in the first plenary session of the next National Assembly. The urgency reflects the financial and political peril of allowing the current legal framework to remain intact.

However, critics argue that the DP’s actions constitute a violation of the “Act on the Prevention of Conflict of Interest Related to Duties of Public Servants,” commonly referred to as the Conflict of Interest Prevention Act. The law prohibits public officials from pursuing private interests in the course of their official duties.

Under Article 2, Section 6 of the law, a public servant’s “private interest” includes any entity where the official or their family holds a position as a representative, executive, or manager. Members of the National Assembly affiliated with the DP fall squarely within this definition when considering their relationship with the party. Article 5, Section 5 further prohibits public officials from participating in decisions related to financial sanctions — such as fines, taxes, or return of public funds — that would directly benefit such affiliated entities.

In this context, revising the election law to eliminate potential fines for the party amounts to lawmakers intervening in a matter where they have a direct financial interest. The party stands to avoid a 43.4 billion won liability if the amendment passes and Lee is later convicted. Legal scholars argue that such an act could violate both the letter and spirit of the conflict-of-interest law.

If the DP wishes to avoid these allegations, it would need to pass the amendment with bipartisan support. But that seems unlikely. The People Power Party, the main opposition, has shown no willingness to endorse a revision that appears designed to shield Lee and the DP from legal and financial consequences.

The party may argue the amendment is legally sound or pursue procedural justifications. Yet the very act of introducing a law that benefits one’s own organization undermines the purpose of the Conflict of Interest Prevention Act. At the very least, the DP has trampled on the principle the law was meant to uphold.

Signage at the Corruption Investigation Office For High-ranking Officials on Jan. 22 [YONHAP]

Historically, election laws in Korea were treated with extra care, passed only through bipartisan consensus. Because such laws define the rules of the political game, unilaterally altering them risks undermining the system itself. That understanding began to erode in 2019 when the DP railroaded changes to the electoral system as part of a broader political deal to pass the Corruption Investigation Office For High-ranking Officials (CIO) Act. Since then, the norm of mutual agreement on election laws has broken down.

Today, unilateral amendments to the election law no longer raise eyebrows. This shift marks a deeper erosion of Korea’s legislative norms and democratic guardrails. The crisis of Korean democracy is not limited to dramatic events like martial law declarations — it also stems from gradual institutional breakdowns such as these.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.