"The opposing interests of the MPs in the publication may be politically understandable, but they are not legally founded," said party lawyer Sophie Schönberger from the University of Düsseldorf to "Spiegel" in the new edition. "In my opinion, the justification with the personal data of the exercise of the mandate does not apply here, since it is doubtful whether the naming of companies at the Ministry of Mask Shops is part of the core of the parliamentary work," said Schönberger of the legal concerns on the part of the Federal Ministry of Health and the Bundestag administration.
"It is obvious that electoral district delegates could achieve not only a financial but also a political advantage if they brokered specific contacts from companies in their constituency." Therefore, the public interest clearly predominates here and the ministry has a duty to publish the names. The jurist Joachim Wieland from the University of Speyer sees it similarly: "I see no reason why the names should not be published," he told the "Spiegel". The argument with the personal data did not convince him either. “Of course, one could point out which MPs did not receive any money.” After revelations about lucrative mask deals by MPs Georg Nüßlein (previously CSU) and Nikolas Löbel (previously CDU), who had since left the parties, Spahn had promised a list which all MPs should be in connection with mask business, including those who have not obtained any financial advantage through their brokerage business. Most recently, however, the ministry announced that it would first discuss it with the parliamentary groups and obtain the consent of each MP concerned before the list is published. The Bundestag administration had proposed this approach.