Dangers of corporate funding for parties too great

Whatever short-term embarrassment Michael Noonan may have suffered from the affair of the much-travelled and source-disputed £…

Whatever short-term embarrassment Michael Noonan may have suffered from the affair of the much-travelled and source-disputed £33,000 donation, his decision as Fine Gael leader to refuse future corporate donations has been promptly and amply justified by these events.

The saga of that cheque shows precisely why the financing of political parties by corporate donations needs to be abolished - a cause I have advocated vigorously.

There was a time when financing of parties by private sector donations appeared tolerable, and was broadly acceptable to public opinion. For decades after the State was founded modest contributions came from business and professional people with commitments to parties, deriving from the Civil War period.

In the 1970s, as these personal commitments weakened, the balance shifted towards companies contributing proportionately to all parties, because of a widespread and genuine belief that it was desirable to support the democratic process in this way. The almost universal cynicism now expressed about the possibility of such a motivation is an unhappy reflection of radical changes in our society in recent decades.

READ MORE

That contribution system was vulnerable to abuse, and the parties should have been more alert to the need to reform it. Neither vigilance by party leaders in rejecting contributions of unusual magnitude, nor coming from sources with an interest in particular government decisions, offered absolute security against abuse. Nor have attempts to seal off knowledge of corporate contributions from ministers, so they could not be influenced in their decisions.

In recent decades, where once there were business proprietors with personal responsibility for decisions, now there are corporations, a minority at least of them led by people with variable attitudes towards business ethics. So conditions became ripe for golden circles among less scrupulous business leaders.

As the scale of business activities grew, lax public attitudes to tax evasion, which had always existed in post-colonial Ireland, became a much greater problem.

Finally, there has been the possible impact of such a system on political parties' attitude towards business and wealthy people generally. The parties' financial dependence on such a confined group must have at least a subconscious effect on some politicians' attitudes to tax equity.

When our political system began to respond to these developments in the 1990s, the reforms were too slow and too limited to root out the abuses that had grown up. But now, after the exposure of the dangers of the situation, the persistence of resistance to reform by several political parties is surprising. One might have thought the strength of the public reaction to these abuses and fear of electoral retribution would have brought about a change of attitude throughout the political system.

I find it surprising that Fianna Fail should persist in believing its advantage from continuing to accept corporate contributions up to £20,000 will exceed the potential disadvantages in terms of public support with an election due in the next year, with the financial behaviour of some of its former leadership and current TDs still fresh in the public memory.

What about the Progressive Democrats? Since this funding issue first raised its head, this party has opposed the banning of corporate donations and substituting Exchequer funding. This approach appears to be so at variance with genuine PD concern about standards in public life that it must be pulled against its instincts by a high degree of dependence upon corporate contributions. Given its right-wing stance on so many issues, it would not be surprising if it attracted a good deal of financial support from business.

But it must be embarrassing for those Progressive Democrats who have campaigned for it because of its strong ethical stances to read last Wednesday in Denis Coghlan's report that "some of those in Fianna Fail opposed to corporate funding are beginning to blame the Progressive Democrats for the Taoiseach's obduracy", claiming that "Mary Harney's party was the only one now receiving any sizeable donations from the business sector".

The straw of justification to which the Government parties are clinging is the reported opinion of the Attorney-General, Michael McDowell, that it would be unconstitutional to ban contributions to political parties - apparently because this would interfere with some unspecified human right.

What human right could be at issue? If it is the donor's right to spend his money any way he likes, then how could it be legal, as the Government proposes, to limit the amounts paid by donors to parties? And even if the right to give money to parties is held to be sacrosanct, surely the right of parties to receive this money is constitutionally open to regulation. Their right to spend on elections, for instance, has had a limit imposed.

I cannot see that the Constitution could be an insurmountable barrier - if an amendment was needed, at this stage it would be likely to be passed with enthusiasm.

And is the Government not looking for additional amendments to put to the people with the Nice Treaty amendment? A referendum on banning of corporate funding of political parties should secure an impressive turnout.

No, the constitutional argument against reforming party funding will not wash. Nor does the Government's attempt to fudge the distinction between corporate and individual donations carry any weight. There is a clear legal distinction between corporations and individuals, one that can readily be enforced.

The Government's attempt to draw the Opposition parties into talks about the size of corporate donations rather than the principle of such donations will get them nowhere.

I am not sure the full implications of a radical reform of party funding have been grasped yet. With State funding of parties only, politicians would be much freer to give priority to society's needs without regard to powerful interest groups.

The atmosphere in which politics operates would be radically changed by a radical reform of the political contribution system.

gfitzgerald@irish-times.ie