The financial contribution, equivalent to 100,000 US dollars, has been allocated among the Conservative, Progress, and Christian Democratic parties. An individual donation of this size is rare in Norway.
An unusual episode in Norwegian politics has sparked debate both domestically and internationally. The Norwegian-Venezuelan activist, who has emerged as a significant donor in recent years, confirmed he has donated one million crowns to three conservative parties: Høyre (Conservative Party), Fremskrittspartiet (Frp, Progress Party), and Kristelig Folkeparti (KrF, Christian Democratic Party).
His stated goal: to pressure the government and the Storting (Parliament) to adopt a more active stance against the Caracas regime, which has been accused of election fraud in the 2024 presidential elections.
The weight of the benefitted parties
– Høyre, led by Erna Solberg, is the main force of moderate right-wing politics and one of the parties capable of forming the government.
– Frp, headed by Sylvi Listhaug, represents populist right-wing politics and has historically been the toughest party on immigration and foreign policy.
– KrF, while smaller in parliamentary representation, has a strategic role as a coalition partner and an influential voice on ethical and human rights issues.
This donation, officially registered in August, not only strengthens these parties heading into the 2025 elections, but also raises questions about private influence in the foreign policy of a country known for its neutrality and active diplomacy.
The benefitted parties have responded cautiously. Høyre and KrF thanked the donor for their support while insisting that their agendas are not conditioned by private funding. Frp, on the other hand, celebrated the contribution as support for their hardline stance against authoritarian regimes. From organizations backing the government, the Labour Party (Ap) and Sosialistisk Venstreparti (SV) condemned that “private money should not dictate the compass of Norwegian diplomacy,” while Rødt labeled the operation as an attempt to “buy political influence.”
The shadow of the Nobel Peace Prize
The case gained more weight when analysts raised the possibility that an actor attempting to intervene in foreign policy could also influence the Norwegian Nobel Committee, responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize. Although there is no direct evidence, this worries academics and diplomats: if a donor seeks to condition Norway’s international policy, could they also have attempted to guide global decisions like the Nobel award?
One analyst summarized it like this: “The Nobel is a symbol of Norwegian diplomacy. If someone with resources and political motives manages to pressure the government, it’s not farfetched to think they may also try to shape the country’s international prestige through the Nobel.”
The Electoral Authority confirmed that the donation complies with current regulations, but acknowledged that the scale and political intent of the contribution raise questions about democratic fairness. In a nation that has made of transparency and institutional independence its hallmark, this incident sets an uncomfortable precedent.