Japan’s Economic Security Minister Kimi Onoda is at the center of an election-law controversy after weekly magazine Shukan Bunshun reported that an undeclared office in Setouchi, Okayama Prefecture, may have been used to coordinate her 2022 House of Councillors election campaign. The report cites expenses, social-media posts and testimony from local assembly members as evidence. 

The allegations center on the 2022 House of Councillors election. According to an official from the Okayama Prefectural Election Commission, candidates in the Okayama constituency for House of Councillors elections may have only one campaign office. Violations of the rule can potentially carry a fine of up to ¥300,000. At the time, Onoda’s officially registered campaign office was in Okayama city. 

Shukan Bunshun Claims Onoda Used Second Campaign Office in Setouchi 

The magazine article claims that Onoda’s campaign paid ¥61,275 in rent to a company in Setouchi on June 23, 2022, the day after the election was officially announced. It also pointed to a video posted on Onoda’s social media page that same day showing a campaign kickoff event at what was described as the “Setouchi Office.”

Additionally, the magazine interviewed sitting Setouchi city assembly members who had participated in the campaign. One of them stated that local politicians used the office to coordinate campaign operations. “We discussed who would ride in the campaign cars, where they would get on, and what routes they would take,” the assembly member said

Another assembly member described the people gathering at the office as “the team running the election in Setouchi.” According to the second politician, they coordinated campaign cars and collected letters of support, while signs were also kept at the location. The testimony and other evidence have raised additional questions over whether the Setouchi location served as a second office.

Onoda’s Office Denies the Allegations 

Onoda’s office denied the allegations in response to questions from Shukan Bunshun. While it did not address the assembly members’ claims that campaign-related meetings were held at the location, it rejected the characterization of the site being used for the campaign, stating, “There is no fact that the office in question was a campaign office.”

Related Posts