¹ European Commission, ‘Eurobarometer: Public Opinion in the European Union’, Report 58 (fieldwork October–November 2002, released March 2003).Google Scholar

² Campaign debate over immigration and taxation overshadowed the question of Sweden's entry into the euro-zone, largely because pro-euro and anti-euro sentiment cut so broadly across party lines.Google Scholar

³ Lars Leijonborg's Liberal Party became Sweden's third-largest party (racing past the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats) on a theme increasingly familiar in European Union countries – putting a brake on immigration in the face of increasingly porous national borders. The Liberals started a political firestorm during the campaign by proposing that immigrants (more than 7 per cent of Sweden's population are immigrants from outside the EU) pass a Swedish-language test prior to gaining citizenship.Google Scholar

⁴ Editorial, Helsingin Sanomat, 15 March 2003.Google Scholar

⁵ The SDP had been the largest party since 1966, excluding only the 1991 election in the midst of a devastating economic recession, in which election the opposition Centre Party became the largest party. In 1995, the SDP came back with a vengeance, gaining 28.3 per cent of the vote against the Centre Party's 19.8 and the Coalition Party's 17.9 per cent. In 1999, the three parties had almost equal support, at 22.9, 22.4 and 21.0 per cent, respectively.Google Scholar

⁶ Tuomo Martikainen, in Helsingin Sanomat, 3 February 2003.Google Scholar

⁷ This is probably due to the low and decreased support among voters for NATO membership; in addition, politicians have said membership is not a matter of the next parliamentary term (although at the same time the political elite, so the voters believe, has already decided to apply for membership).Google Scholar

⁸ Helsingin Sanomat, 3 February 2003.Google Scholar

⁹ Cay Sevón from the ministry of the interior in Pekka Vuoristo, Helsingin Sanomat, 2 March 2003.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Pasi Tuohimaa, in Helsingin Sanomat, 9 March 2003.Google Scholar

¹¹ Nousiainen, Jaakko, ‘From Semi-presidentialism to Parliamentary Government: Political and Constitutional Developments in Finland’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 24: 2 (2001), pp. 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Martikainen, Helsingin Sanomat, 3 February 2003.Google Scholar

¹³ Unto Hämäläinen, Helsingin Sanomat, 26 January 2003.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See ‘Anneli Jaatteenmaki Had the Most Expensive Election Campaign’, Nordic Business Report, 20 May 2003, and ‘Candidates Spending More on Election Campaign than Before; TV Advertising Becomes more Common’, Helsingin Sanomat, 24 January 2003. Finland's new Act on the Notification of Election Financing, which requires elected candidates to disclose the name of each donor and value of contribution for each contribution exceeding E1,700, was applied for the first time in the 2003 election. In Finland there are no ceilings on campaign spending or political donations, and funds for individual candidacies derive traditionally from party coffers and unions; increasingly, though, party sponsored ‘seminars’ have become common and important sources of funding. According to information provided by their respective campaigns to the ministry of justice, Jäätteenmäki garnered E41,000 from a seminar on economics and Lipponen took in E14,000 for a seminar on communication and interaction. Such seminars are popular vehicles for financing campaigns, explains Green League party secretary Ari Heikkinen, because ‘Participation can cost hundreds of euros. Companies, for instance, can avoid disclosing campaign contributions by registering any number of people as participants at a seminar’, ‘Candidates Spending More’.Google Scholar

¹⁶ ‘Election Gains for Centre Party and SDP at Expense of National Coalition Party,’Helsingin Sanomat, international edition, 14 March 2003.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Germany's September 2002 Bundestag election, for example, has been labelled the ‘most Americanized election campaign in German history’. See Finn, Peter, ‘U.S.-Style Campaign with Anti-U.S. Theme’, Washington Post, 19 September 2002.Google Scholar See also Lars W. Nord, ‘Americanization vs. the Middle Way, New Trends in Political Communication in Sweden,’ Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6: 2 (2001), pp. 113–19.

¹⁸ See Erika Säynässalo, ‘Who to Hold Accountable: The Paradox of Representation in the Finnish Parliamentary Politics’, paper presented at the joint sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research, Edinburgh, 28 March–2 April 2003. Compare also Ian McAllister, ‘Rational or Capricious: Late Deciding Voters in Australia, Britain and the United States’, paper presented at the joint sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research, Copenhagen, 14–19 April 2000, and Bernt Aardal and Henrik Oscarsson, ‘The Myth of Increasing Personalization of Politics. Party Leader Effects on Party Choice in Sweden and Norway 1979–1998’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, 31 August–3 September 2000.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Ilkka Ruostetsaari, ‘Explaining Electoral Success in Parliamentary Elections: The Case of Finland’, paper presented at the joint sessions of the European Consortium for Political Research, Copenhagen, 14–19 April 2000, p. 6.Google Scholar

²⁰ See, for example, Carlson, Tom and Djupsund, Göran, ‘Old Wine in New Bottles? The 1999 Finnish Election Campaign on the Internet’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 6: 1 (2001), pp. 68–87.Google Scholar

²¹ Arter, David, ‘The Finnish Election of 21 March 1999: Towards a Distinctive Model of Government?’, West European Politics, 23: 1 (2000), p. 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar