Correctiv: Money, Boards, Secrets — A Structural Analysis

Methodological note. This text is based on primary Bundestag documents (Drucksachen), the foundations’ own websites, Correctiv’s governance page, and the program of the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) 2023 Science Conference. Where amounts or positions are only secondary-sourced, this is marked. The point is not to deny Correctiv its legitimacy — it is to show what Correctiv systematically does not show when presenting itself as an “independent” investigative platform.

Correctiv is not a watchdog. Correctiv is a node in a web of federal grants, politically aligned board members, NGO collaborations, platform contracts with Meta, and a revolving door that most recently led straight into the Greens’ federal election campaign team. The Federal Government itself actively defends the contested “Secret Plan” investigation against seven sworn affidavits from meeting participants — and refuses to answer the question of what the domestic intelligence service knew before 25 November 2023 by explicitly invoking “reasons of state”.

This text puts the pieces together.

1. The money pillars — €1.2M in federal funding 2014–2023

#

On a written question from AfD MP Leif-Erik Holm, the Parliamentary State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Finance, Dr Florian Toncar, replied on 25 January 2024 with a complete list of federal grants to Correctiv since 2014 [1]. The result:

Toncar adds a crucial disclaimer: “It must be noted that despite the greatest possible diligence, due to the brevity of the time available for the reply, uncertainties and gaps in the result of the ministerial survey cannot be excluded” [1]. The total is therefore a lower bound, not a complete accounting.

In a later reply of 5 August 2024 (Drucksache 20/12475 [2]), it is added that Correctiv received €198,500 from the BKM programme “Protection and structural support of journalistic work” — the same item, with a small discrepancy between the two documents. In the same programme: JX Fund €4,195,275; dpa €321,000 + €240,536; ECPMF €300,000; Netzwerk Recherche €200,000 + €209,371; University of Hamburg €208,338.75; Articlett €309,640.

Notably, the Federal Government explicitly states that Correctiv did not receive funds from the category “Combating right-wing extremism and racism” [2]. The funding is formally housed under “structural support of journalistic work”. What is substantively supported remains beyond the scope of the funding logic.

Major private donors (primary-verified)

#

• Brost Foundation: €675,000 initial grant in 2014. Correctiv itself on its finances page: “Without the initial funding from the Brost Foundation, the build-up of CORRECTIV would not have been possible” [3]. Bodo Hombach, former WAZ managing director and former Brost board member, was chair of Correctiv’s Ethics Council 2014–2016 — and resigned citing a “serious conflict of interest”.
• Schöpflin Foundation: €300,000 per year since 2015 (foundation website [4]). Co-funder of the sister project Correctiv.Lokal since 2018.
• Luminate Group (Pierre Omidyar): $749,500 (2018) + $1,000,000 (2020), both “General Funding Grants” (Luminate website [5]). According to secondary sources, roughly 10 % of Correctiv’s budget in 2020 and 2021. Luminate + Omidyar Network combined over six years: roughly €2.8 million (secondary sources; primary per-grant verification pending).
• Open Society Foundations (Soros): $50,000 (2020, COVID disinformation, 7 months) + $82,933 (2021, “diversify donor base”, 10 months) — both directly from the OSF grants database [6]. Earlier OSF grants 2016–2018 are mentioned in secondary sources at roughly €100,000–159,000/year, but are no longer in the public database.
• Adessium Foundation: Funding since 2015 (Adessium website [7]); amounts not public.
• Demokratie-Stiftung Campact: up to €500,000 over four years starting September 2025 (Correctiv press release [8]). This is new in the picture: Campact is already documented in this blog as a central node of the demonstration infrastructure (see HateAid-Campact pipeline). The direct funding link between demonstration logistics and an investigative platform adds a second-order connection that goes beyond mere structural proximity.

Platform fees

#

• Meta Third-Party Fact-Checking Programme since 2017. Correctiv receives compensation from Meta for fact-checks on Facebook, Instagram, Threads. The amount is not public [9]. The German/European cooperation ran until the end of 2025; Meta ended the US programme in January 2025.
• TikTok educational cooperation 2023/2024 through Correctiv’s Reporterfabrik (not Fact-Check), no fact-checking contract, no compensation public.
• GADMO (German-Austrian Digital Media Observatory) as an EU-financed fact-checking hub: Correctiv is a founding partner [10]. Per-partner EU grant amounts are not public.

Interim summary on funding: Correctiv’s self-presentation is that of a donation-financed non-profit investigative platform. In reality, the funding draws from at least four structurally distinct sources: federal grants (>€1.2M), major foundations with a clearly progressive-activist agenda (Luminate/Omidyar, OSF/Soros, Campact-Stiftung), traditional media foundations (Brost, Schöpflin, Augstein, Adessium), and platform fees from Meta. Citizen donations in the sense of the self-presentation are the smallest of these.

2. The board — who supervises

#

Correctiv’s governance page [11] lists three current oversight bodies: a supervisory board (three people), an advisory board / kuratorium (five people), and an ethics council (“currently being re-staffed”). Three people sit on both governance bodies.

Lukas Beckmann — Chair of the Supervisory Board and Kuratorium member

#

Lukas Beckmann has an unambiguous party-political background: from 1991 to 2010 — 19 years — he was parliamentary secretary (Fraktionsgeschäftsführer) of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen in the German Bundestag. Before that, until 1991, he was founding managing director of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung in Cologne (the Greens’ party-aligned foundation). From March 2011 to March 2017 he was a board member of GLS Treuhand e.V. and the GLS Bank Foundation. He is currently engaged on a voluntary basis, including for the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Brandenburg (Wikipedia [12], Correctiv governance [11]).

The top supervisor of an “independent” investigative platform is thus a two-decade professional politician of a single party and the institutional founder of that party’s flagship think tank.

Dagmar Hovestädt — Chair of the Kuratorium, Deputy Chair of the Supervisory Board

#

Hovestädt is a co-founder of netzwerk recherche e.V. [11] — the exact association that awarded Correctiv its 2024 “Leuchtturm” (Lighthouse) Prize for outstanding journalistic work. One person at the top of both the prize recipient and the prize-giving body is not “no conflict” — it is the definition of conflict.

Before moving to consulting, Hovestädt was 2011–2021 spokesperson for the Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records (a federal authority reporting to the Federal Ministry of the Interior) — a biographical line that fits surprisingly well with the federal grants and government meetings.

Maria Scharlau — Kuratorium member

#

Scharlau has led press and communications at the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (GFF) (Society for Civil Rights) since 2021. GFF is one of the most active strategic-litigation NGOs in Germany’s fundamental-rights space, with a clearly progressive-left profile [11]. Before that, ten years in domestic politics at Amnesty International. An NGO career on the kuratorium of an investigative platform is not in itself a scandal, but one more building block.

Andrew Murphy — Deputy Supervisory Board member

#

Murphy runs Murphy & Spitz Sustainable Asset Management in Bonn and is a board member of Murphy & Spitz Green Capital AG (renewable energies). Politically, Murphy’s profile is less one-dimensional — but ESG / “sustainability” as an investment focus aligns with the Beckmann/Hovestädt/Scharlau line.

David Schraven — founder, publisher

#

Schraven is simultaneously chair of the board of the Forum Gemeinnütziger Journalismus e.V., an umbrella association that Correctiv co-founded. On the Forum’s advisory board sits Christian Humborg — a former managing director of Correctiv (and former managing director of Transparency International Germany). The founder of a platform and the umbrella association that politically represents that platform are thus led by the same person.

Interim summary on oversight: Three of the five kuratorium members have a clearly Green-progressive or NGO-activist profile. The chair of the supervisory board is a 19-year Greens professional politician. The founder runs the umbrella association that represents his own organization. A plural, cross-partisan oversight body does not exist.

3. The revolving door

#

Jeannette Gusko — Co-CEO → Greens election campaign

#

In September 2022, Jeannette Gusko became Co-Chief Executive of Correctiv. On 13 November 2024 — less than ten months after the “Secret Plan” publication — Correctiv announced that Gusko was leaving the Co-CEO position “with immediate effect” to “help shape the upcoming federal election campaign of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen” [13]. The exact function at the Greens was not specified in the announcement; according to the Berliner Zeitung [14], it is a position in the campaign team of lead candidate Robert Habeck.

A Co-CEO of the investigative platform whose best-known publication was used in the political moment as direct fuel for an anti-AfD mobilization moves directly into the campaign team of the party that benefited most from that mobilization. A similar personnel continuity at a German public broadcaster would trigger complaints to the broadcasting councils.

Christian Humborg — Transparency International → Correctiv → Forum advisory board

#

Humborg was managing director of Transparency International Germany 2007–2014, then commercial managing director of Correctiv 2014–November 2016, and since 2017 a kuratorium member (the governance page is slightly outdated). In parallel, he is an advisory board member of Transparency Germany and of the Forum Gemeinnütziger Journalismus, which Schraven leads.

David Schraven — dual role

#

As noted above: founder/publisher of Correctiv + chair of the Forum Gemeinnütziger Journalismus + former treasurer of netzwerk recherche e.V. (2007–September 2014, i.e. until shortly before Correctiv’s founding).

Interim summary on careers: The personnel nodes between Correctiv, the Forum, netzwerk recherche, Transparency International, and Greens-aligned politics are dense and partly circular. The revolving door between investigative platform and party politics became publicly visible in 2024 with the Gusko transition.

4. The state–Correctiv alignment

#

BMI meeting on 2 June 2020

#

From Drucksache 20/10316 [15] and secondarily from the Berliner Zeitung: on 2 June 2020, Correctiv CEO David Schraven attended a meeting at the Federal Ministry of the Interior — alongside representatives of YouTube and Facebook, the then government spokesperson, and representatives from several ministries. Topic: “combating disinformation in the context of Corona”. Schraven is quoted in the Drucksache saying invitations “basically happen from time to time”. That private investigative platforms work jointly with platform corporations and federal ministries on “disinformation combating” is precisely the structural entanglement an independent watchdog would avoid.

BfV Science Conference “Opinion Formation 2.0” — 6 September 2023

#

On 5 and 6 September 2023, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) held its 2nd Science Conference in Berlin under the title “Opinion Formation 2.0 — Strategies in the Battle for Interpretive Sovereignty in the Digital Age” [16]. BfV President Thomas Haldenwang gave the opening address; Vice President Silke Willems closed the conference.

In the programme PDF, Panel 8 on 6 September: “Sustainable Prebunking through Debunking: how CORRECTIV combats disinformation through peer production” — Caroline Lindekamp, CORRECTIV and Technical University of Dortmund [17].

That is 80 days before the Potsdam meeting of 25 November 2023. A Correctiv staff member presents at a science conference of the domestic intelligence service, on how her platform “combats disinformation”. Institutional cooperation between a private investigative platform and the domestic intelligence service is not a neutral process for a democracy.

noFake — BMBF consortium

#

From Drucksache 20/12475 [2]: Correctiv is a partner in the BMBF-financed consortium project noFake, whose aim is the development of an “AI-supported assistance system for crowdsourcing-based detection of disinformation spread through digital platforms”. Grant from budget line 30 (BMBF) for 2022–2023: €266,000 (Correctiv’s share).

A state-funded fact-checking AI, with a state-co-funded investigative platform as a consortium partner, is the structural translation of “public-private partnership” into the field of opinion formation. Who gets to join the consortium is decided by the ministry.

Jury entanglement at BKM

#

Drucksache 20/12475 lists the jury for the BKM funding line “Protection and structural support of journalistic work” [2]. Member: Hatice Kahraman, editor-in-chief of Salon5 (Correctiv’s youth project). The document includes the standard recusal notice (§ 7.2 of the funding principles: no advice or decision in project-related self-interest), but structurally, representation on the funding committee is one more node.

Greenpeace as co-publisher of the “Secret Plan” investigation

#

Not yet adequately covered on this blog: the Potsdam investigation was a co-publication of Correctiv and Greenpeace. In Drucksache 20/10316 [15], the Federal Government itself refers to “CORRECTIV, in cooperation with Greenpeace, reported under the title ‘Secret Plan Against Germany’ on 10 January 2024”. Greenpeace.de maintains its own page “Updates and reactions to the Secret Plan investigation” and describes its own preliminary investigation, the provision of photos and documents to Correctiv.

Greenpeace is plainly an activist NGO with a decisively political agenda, not an investigative platform. Co-publication with an activist NGO is a fundamental status question: an investigation produced and published with the collaboration of a political activist organization is not independent investigation by self-understanding — it is campaign journalism with an investigative component.

5. The refusal: “reasons of state”

#

The central document in this complex is Drucksache 20/13179 of 25 September 2024 [18] — the Federal Government’s reply to the Major AfD Inquiry 20/11469 on “Knowledge of the Federal Government and its subordinate authorities about the alleged secret meeting of Potsdam”.

Question 1: What did the BfV know before 25 November 2023?

#

Text of the question: “What knowledge did the Federal Government and its subordinate authorities, including the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), have about the alleged ‘secret meeting of Potsdam’ of 25 November 2023 up to the time of the publication of CORRECTIV’s ‘report’?”

The reply of the Federal Government, verbatim:

“After careful consideration, the Federal Government has come to the conclusion that an answer to the question of its knowledge about the event on 25 November 2023 in Potsdam/Brandenburg cannot be given due to overriding reasons of state. An answer could allow conclusions about the state of knowledge of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) and about intelligence-service methodologies and working methods.”

“An answer is also excluded under classified-material status, which would be available at the Bundestag’s classified-information office. The question concerns a specific event with a determinable circle of participants as well as a determinable circle of persons who had prior knowledge of it.”

“If the question were answered, it is to be feared that the right-wing extremist scene could draw conclusions about the state of knowledge of the BfV and adjust its further course of action accordingly, developing countermeasures.”

This is the sharpest possible form of refusal — not even in the Bundestag’s classified-information office may MPs learn what the BfV knew in advance. The reasoning contains an implicit admission: it presupposes a “determinable circle of persons who had prior knowledge”. The question would be harmless only if that circle were empty.

Questions 4–7: Recordings, minutes, Greenpeace involvement

#

Questions 4 to 7 in 20/11469 asked about audio/video recordings of the meeting, about minutes, about Greenpeace involvement in the observation, and about BfV knowledge of either. The reply is again a blanket refusal:

“A further answer cannot be given after careful consideration due to overriding reasons of state, not even in classified form. Reference is made to the answer to Question 1.”

With the usual disclaimer: “This refusal on principle makes no statement as to whether the suspicions expressed in the questions are correct or incorrect.” A refusal that explicitly leaves open whether the suspicions are correct is legally clean — politically, it is the opposite of a clear denial.

Questions 8, 9, 11: informants and foreign intelligence services

#

The AfD directly asks: were confidential informants (V-Leute) of the BfV or of a state office present at the meeting? Has the Federal Government information from foreign intelligence services about the meeting? Were V-Leute on the guest list?

Again blanket refusal on “reasons of state”, same reasoning as Question 1. Additionally a reference to the Third-Party Rule for foreign intelligence services — which is only relevant if an exchange has actually taken place.

What the Federal Government says — and does not say

#

In answers that are not refused, one remarkable sentence appears in the Federal Government’s preliminary remarks [18]: “According to media reporting, the seven sworn affidavits mentioned in the preliminary remarks of the questioners do not contradict the representations of the investigative network CORRECTIV on the meeting in Potsdam.”

This is a political judgment — the Federal Government actively positions itself pro-Correctiv against seven sworn affidavits from meeting participants. A Federal Government that in funding matters formally keeps its distance (“We do not evaluate journalistic content”) does evaluate it after all — when it matters.

Plus the reply to Question 3: “Information exists that confirms the circle of participants of the meeting in Potsdam/Brandenburg on 25 November 2023. The essential contents of the meeting fit into the Federal Government’s existing body of knowledge on similarly structured meetings.”

Translation: the BfV had after-the-fact information “confirming” the participant circle — which logically is only possible if the BfV had a prior target reference. What was that prior state of knowledge? The answer to that is the refused Question 1.

6. The political backing — Scholz and Faeser stand by “secret conference”

#

Scholz repeats claims Correctiv itself never made

#

From Drucksache 20/11930 of 3 July 2024 [19]: Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke on 13 March 2024 in a government questioning in the Bundestag (plenary protocol 20/156, p. 19995) — and earlier in a Ramadan message of 10 March 2024 — of “reports of racist deportation plans by right-wing extremists” with reference to the Correctiv coverage.

The problem: at that time, Correctiv had already stated in a Hamburg Regional Court proceeding that it had never made the claim that the participants of the meeting had discussed deportation plans. Correctiv’s legal representative stated that this claim could not even be the subject of the proceedings, because Correctiv had never made it: “Accordingly, in these proceedings, it is not in dispute that at the meeting, among the participants, within the discussion, no further consideration was given to the question of which possibilities exist to expel current German citizens with German passports directly on the basis of racist criteria.”

Scholz nonetheless publicly repeated before the Bundestag a claim that Correctiv itself had rejected. The AfD questioners classify that (following the typology of Hans-Bredow researcher Judith Möller) as “deliberate disinformation”. Readers may share that classification or not — the fact of the repetition is documented.

Faeser stands by “racist deportation fantasies”

#

From Drucksache 20/12677 of 30 August 2024 [20], Holm written question 26: Holm asked whether Federal Chancellor Scholz and Federal Interior Minister Faeser still stood by statements such as “secret conference”, “devilish plan”, “disgusting relocation plans” and “racist deportation fantasies” — despite the now-documented critique of the investigation (Übermedien, FAZ, Cicero — all named).

The reply of Parliamentary State Secretary Rita Schwarzelühr-Sutter of 27 August 2024:

“The statements of the Federal Chancellor and Federal Minister Faeser speak for themselves.”

That is the legally tersest way to say: we distance ourselves from nothing. The Federal Government stands by a judgment that — measured against the 2026 legal state, three Berlin injunctions and the Hamburg “lie”-as-permissible-value-judgment ruling (see Part 1 of this series) — is no longer tenable.

7. The total picture — structural analysis

#

What comes together here is not a single scandal. It is a structural picture:

The financial pillar: Correctiv receives roughly €1.2M directly from the federal budget over ten years — spread across six budget lines (BKM, AA, BPB, BMFSFJ, DSEE, BMBF). Added to that are major private donors with a clearly progressive-activist agenda (Luminate/Omidyar, OSF/Soros, Campact-Stiftung), traditional media foundations (Brost, Schöpflin, Augstein, Adessium), and platform fees from Meta. Citizen donations, in the sense of the self-presentation, are the smallest of these.

The personnel pillar: The chair of the supervisory board is a 19-year Greens professional politician and founder of the Heinrich-Böll Foundation. The chair of the kuratorium leads the association that awards prizes to her own platform. The Co-CEO moves directly in 2024 into the Greens’ election-campaign team. The founder leads the umbrella association that politically represents his own platform.

The operational pillar: Correctiv works for Meta as a paid fact-checker, sits in the EU-financed GADMO hub, is a consortium partner in the BMBF-financed AI fact-checking project noFake, presents at science conferences of the domestic intelligence service, and cooperates with Greenpeace on investigations with direct political mobilization impact.

The political pillar: The Federal Government actively defends the Correctiv “Secret Plan” investigation against seven sworn affidavits, expressly stands by the Faeser “deportation fantasies” judgment, lets Chancellor Scholz repeat claims Correctiv itself has withdrawn, and refuses to answer on BfV prior knowledge / V-Leute / Greenpeace involvement under the sharpest available justification — “reasons of state”.

What adds up in sum is not the independent investigative watchdog that Correctiv presents itself as. It is a public-activist fact-checking infrastructure, in which federal funding, politically aligned oversight, NGO cooperation, platform contracts, and intelligence-service interfaces merge into a node. The individual building blocks are each legal and partly even transparently documented. The sum is not.

8. What this changes — and what it does not

#

It does not change the fact that Correctiv does journalistic work, that a meeting did take place in Potsdam on 25 November 2023, and that there were anti-right demonstrations with millions of participants. It does not change that many of the grants listed here are legal, and that persons like Lukas Beckmann have a constitutional right, after 19 years in a Bundestag faction, to take up supervisory mandates.

What it changes: Correctiv’s self-presentation as an “independent” investigative platform is not appropriate to the structural picture. An entity with €1.2M in federal funding, with oversight dominated by one party, whose Co-CEO moves into campaign teams, and which presents to the domestic intelligence service on “prebunking”, is not an independent watchdog — it is part of a politically positioned fact-checking apparatus.

Anyone reading Correctiv investigations should know this. Not to dismiss them wholesale — but to contextualize them. An investigation produced in such a structurally positioned environment can be correct. It must, however, meet the same standards of verification as any other investigation from a clearly positioned actor. Not more, not less.

The Federal Government itself, on 25 September 2024, signalled with its refusal answer: there is more in the background here than is publicly negotiable. Anyone who takes that seriously treats the Correctiv “Secret Plan” investigation not as independent proof, but as what it structurally also is — the output of an apparatus that is part of the subject it reports on.

Sources

#

[1] Bundestag Drucksache 20/10170 (26 Jan 2024): Written questions, reply of Parliamentary State Secretary Dr Florian Toncar of 25 Jan 2024 to Written Question 25 by MP Leif-Erik Holm. dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/101/2010170.pdf

[2] Bundestag Drucksache 20/12475 (5 Aug 2024): Reply of the Federal Government to the Minor Inquiry of MPs Renner et al. (AfD) — Drucksache 20/12299 — “State co-financing of CORRECTIV and other private media enterprises”. dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/124/2012475.pdf

[3] Correctiv: Finances — own presentation. correctiv.org/ueber-uns/finanzen

[4] Schöpflin Foundation: Funding Partner — Correctiv (as of 2026). schoepflin-stiftung.de/en/funding-partner/detail/correctiv

[5] Luminate Group: Investee — Correctiv. luminategroup.com/investee/correctiv — Grant amounts $749,500 (2018) and $1,000,000 (2020) from Luminate press releases, secondary-confirmed.

[6] Open Society Foundations: Grants database, filter “Correctiv”. opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/past?filter_keyword=Correctiv

[7] Adessium Foundation: Correctiv funded since 2015. adessium.org

[8] Correctiv (1 Sep 2025): “CORRECTIV receives funding from Demokratie-Stiftung Campact” — up to €500,000 over four years. correctiv.org/in-eigener-sache/2025/09/01/correctiv-erhaelt-foerderung-von-der-demokratie-stiftung-campact

[9] Correctiv (8 Jan 2025): “CORRECTIV statement on Meta’s decision”. correctiv.org/in-eigener-sache/2025/01/08/correctiv-stellungnahme-zu-metas-entscheidung-die-zusammenarbeit-mit-faktencheck-redaktionen-zu-beenden

[10] GADMO — German-Austrian Digital Media Observatory: About. gadmo.eu/en/about-us/gadmo-at-a-glance

[11] Correctiv: Governance — Supervisory Board, Kuratorium, Ethics Council. correctiv.org/ueber-uns/gremien

[12] Wikipedia: Lukas Beckmann. de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukas_Beckmann

[13] Correctiv (13 Nov 2024): “New task for CORRECTIV Co-CEO”. correctiv.org/in-eigener-sache/2024/11/13/neue-aufgabe-fuer-co-geschaeftsfuehrerin-von-correctiv

[14] Berliner Zeitung (13 Nov 2024): “CORRECTIV leadership figure now campaigning for the Greens”. berliner-zeitung.de/…/2271661

[15] Bundestag Drucksache 20/10316 (13 Feb 2024): Minor Inquiry of MP Jan Wenzel Schmidt and the AfD fraction — “Possible contacts of the Federal Government with Correctiv”. dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/103/2010316.pdf

[16] Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution: press release on the 2nd Science Conference “Opinion Formation 2.0” on 5/6 September 2023. verfassungsschutz.de/pressemitteilung-2023-5-wissenschaftskonferenz

[17] BfV Science Conference 2023: programme overview (conference programme PDF) — Panel 8, 6 September 2023, “Sustainable Prebunking through Debunking: how CORRECTIV combats disinformation through peer production”, presentation by Caroline Lindekamp (Correctiv and TU Dortmund).

[18] Bundestag Drucksache 20/13179 (25 Sep 2024): Reply of the Federal Government to the Major Inquiry of MPs Renner et al. (AfD) — Drucksache 20/11469 — “Knowledge of the Federal Government and its subordinate authorities about the alleged secret meeting of Potsdam as well as about cooperation with CORRECTIV”. dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/131/2013179.pdf

[19] Bundestag Drucksache 20/11930 (3 Jul 2024): Minor Inquiry of MPs Renner et al. (AfD) on domestic disinformation aimed at the domestic public — references plenary protocol 20/156, p. 19995. dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/119/2011930.pdf

[20] Bundestag Drucksache 20/12677 (30 Aug 2024): Written questions, reply of Parliamentary State Secretary Rita Schwarzelühr-Sutter of 27 Aug 2024 to Written Question 26 by MP Leif-Erik Holm. dserver.bundestag.de/btd/20/126/2012677.pdf

Read more — the Correctiv series on elizaonsteroids.org

#

• Part 1: Three Sentences, Two Courts, No Final Judgment: What the Correctiv Rulings Actually Say
• Part 2: The Reporter, the Awards, the Money: What’s Behind the Correctiv Investigation
• Part 3: Eight Days in January: How the Farmers’ Protests Became the “Secret Plan”
• Part 4 (this article): Money, Boards, Secrets — A Structural Analysis

Related money-flow investigations:

• Follow the Money: Who Funds HateAid — and Why It Matters
• The Red Thread: Klingbeil, Soros and 351 Hits in the Epstein Files
• Fernandes vs. Ulmen: Real Accusations, Planned Campaign — and a Professor Off the Rails

Part 4 of the Media Criticism series. Research cut-off: 23 April 2026. All primary Drucksachen are linked above; the source verification is reproducible.