This essay explains that Japan’s publicly available political fund reports, as posted on the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications website, cover only three years, making it impossible to directly verify certain older claims.
It emphasizes a basic principle of the rule of law: without solid evidence, one should not declare someone guilty.
At the same time, it criticizes the opposition’s double standard—especially the tactic of demanding that the suspected party prove innocence—using the “Moritomo-Kake” controversy, related arguments, and reactions surrounding Tsunehiko Yoshida and CDP Secretary-General Tetsuro Fukuyama as examples.

2019-02-16.
And yet, when Secretary-General Tetsuro Fukuyama of the Constitutional Democratic Party was asked about Mr. Tsunehiko Yoshida by a freelance reporter, it seems his eyes involuntarily darted around.
The following continues from the previous chapter.
Political fund reports are available only for three years.
So what is the reality of the matter?
Unfortunately, under the current system, the political fund reports published on the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications website cover only three years.
For this reason, we cannot directly confirm the fund report that the earlier Weekly Asahi article discussed.
Also, even if we view the three years of fund reports currently obtainable for Ms. Kiyomi Tsujimoto’s political organization, “Citizens and Peace Project,” we cannot find any wording such as “Kansai Nama-con.”
Fiscal Year 2014 report.
Fiscal Year 2015 report.
Fiscal Year 2016 report.
When you run a website as an individual, it is frustrating that there are unavoidable limits to the information you can obtain.
In addition, copies of what are claimed to be political fund reports of Ms. Kiyomi Tsujimoto’s organization “Politica = Kiyomi and Citizens” from around Fiscal Year 1999 and Fiscal Year 2000 are circulating online, but unfortunately, as of now, I myself have not obtained evidence that those documents are authentic.
Therefore, as of today, I would like to avoid stating definitively that “Ms. Kiyomi Tsujimoto is connected to nama-con.”
I am sorry that this may leave readers with an unresolved feeling, but even so, as this website, I want to avoid declaring someone “guilty” without solid evidence, even if the person in question is a member of the Diet.
If it is the CDP, then it cannot be helped.
The suspected person must prove their innocence.
However, if the person being suspected is Ms. Kiyomi Tsujimoto, the story changes.
That is because Ms. Tsujimoto is the person who led the “struggle tactic” in the “Moritomo–Kake issue” and the “sexual harassment issue” that insisted the suspected side must produce evidence of innocence.
Please try to remember.
As also mentioned in “(Evening Edition) Do Not Tolerate Representative Kiyomi Tsujimoto’s Obstruction Strategy,” it was precisely Ms. Tsujimoto who led the thorough tactic of refusing deliberations in the Diet, and the specific opposition parties led by the Constitutional Democratic Party took a 20-day consecutive vacation around Golden Week without the public’s consent.
In particular, the “Moritomo–Kake issue” refers to the “suspicion that Shinzo Abe abused his position as Prime Minister to provide illegal favors to an educational corporation run by a personal friend,” yet despite that, I have never heard a rational explanation of which article of which law the Prime Minister allegedly violated, and how.
If we think using the Kake Gakuen “issue” as an example, one might say it was “the issue in which Shinzo Abe illegally caused approval of a new veterinary school—something prohibited by law—for the Kake Gakuen educational corporation run by his personal friend Kotaro Kake,” but in fact there is no law that prohibits establishing a new veterinary school.
Rather, the essence of the matter is that the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, in violation of the law, created an illegal notice on its own authority stating that it would not allow the establishment of new faculties such as veterinary medicine, thereby twisting the administration.
Put more bluntly, the “Moritomo–Kake issue” was the worst-ever coup in speech, in which the mass media tried, through impression manipulation alone, to frame the Prime Minister as guilty in order to prevent debate on revising the Constitution of Japan.
The moment the Constitutional Democratic Party rode that “Moritomo–Kake issue,” it became equally culpable.
However, Japan is fundamentally a country governed by the rule of law, and for someone to be declared “guilty,” it is not the suspected side that bears the obligation to prove innocence.
It is the side making the suspicion that bears the obligation to prove the suspected person’s guilt.
The exasperating double standard of the CDP.
The “Moritomo–Kake issue” is an extreme example, but even so, if one claims that “Shinzo Abe is guilty,” one certainly has the duty at minimum to indicate “which law might be violated, and how.”
The same logic applies to opposition lawmakers as well.
For example, this website has, on several occasions in the past, discussed a possible connection between the Ministry of Education corruption case and Representative Tsunehiko Yoshida of the Constitutional Democratic Party.
This includes the facts that the arrested defendant Koji Taniguchi held the position of “policy advisor” to House of Councillors member Yuichiro Hata of the Democratic Party for the People (this point is almost certain), that from that position Taniguchi may have had contact with senior officials at the Ministry, and that there may be a possibility that Representative Yoshida exists behind the corruption case.
Of course, with only such circumstantial evidence, we cannot build an argument on the premise that Representative Yoshida is “guilty,” and the reason this website has avoided asserting that “Representative Yoshida is the ringleader of the Ministry of Education corruption” is for precisely the same reason.
However, if we follow the logic used by the Constitutional Democratic Party in pursuing the “Moritomo–Kake issue,” then they can hardly complain if someone says,
“Mr. Tsunehiko Yoshida must be involved as the mastermind behind the Ministry of Education corruption.
If you claim that is not the case, then show the evidence!”
And yet, when Secretary-General Tetsuro Fukuyama of the Constitutional Democratic Party was asked about Mr. Tsunehiko Yoshida by a freelance reporter, it seems his eyes involuntarily darted around (see “CDP Secretary-General Fukuyama, eyes dart as he speaks about ‘Representative Tsunehiko Yoshida’”).
I am left speechless at such double standards.
To be continued.