Do us all a favour Sean, tell us what you know

What does it matter whether Denis O'Brien of Cork gave Bertie Ahern £50,000 in the car-park of the Burlington Hotel on the night of the 1989 All Ireland Football Final or any money at any other time on behalf of whoever? Suppose he did, why should that be a problem for Bertie Ahern? He was then a leading member of the main political party which got lots of £50,000 from rich people and corporations? Why does it matter whether £50,000 was given in a car-park to a particular politician or given by way of bank draft to the party's account? It isn't just a handful of local councillors who are corrupt; the political system is corrupt. That corruption has infected politics here for decades and decades. The odd corrupted rezoning decision - or the many corrupted rezoning decisions - have done harm, but nowhere as much harm as the corrupted decisions which have been taken at national level. All the main political parties have been deeply infected by this, and a large proportion of the population have been gravely disadvantaged by it.

There is a vulgarity about local councillors getting large amounts of cash in brown paper bags and favouring the interests of the bag-carriers and their masters, but how could it be as bad as whole political parties being bought by powerful interests and the national interest being thereby prejudiced - relentlessly?

It is not believable that the main political parties have not favoured the specific interests of the main donors. The menacing libel laws deter me from being specific but just look at the people who have become massively wealthy here over the last 15 years, the people and corporations which have built up staggering monopolies or near-monopoly power and correlate that to the huge donations made to political parties during that time.

It isn't just the correlation between the huge donations and the specific interests of the wealthy and powerful. It is a more sinister corruption, that corruption of the political system by having it in hock to the people with money. Even if, at a mere subliminal level, the national politicians were not influenced in favour of the interest of specific donors, the system would still be corrupt.

This is because the parties which propagate the interests of the wealthy are going to attract the financial support of the wealthy and, conversely, those which support the interests of the poor attract little or no financial support. The political system is corrupt at its core because of the essential unfairness built into it. How else could one explain the persistent favouring of the rich against the interests of the poor in budget after budget, in Finance Act after Finance Act?

The proposal made in this newspaper on Monday by Sean Fleming of Fianna Fail is naive. Allowing contributions of up to £500 from "registered voters" would bias the political system in favour of those who could afford donations of up to £500, against the interests of those who could not. More than that, permitting any such donations would leave the system open to widespread abuse and make its supervision impossible.

The only cure is to ban all private funding of political parties and campaigns and finance them entirely from the Exchequer on a basis which is fair.

It would mean that politicians or prospective politicians could not use their own wealth or anybody else's to be elected and stay elected; all candidates would be funded equally by the State and would be disbarred from using any other funds; political parties would be funded fairly and fair provision would be made for emerging parties.

Such a system would require rigorous monitoring, involving annual audits of the finances not just of parties but also of individual politicians by a commission with the powers enjoyed by tribunals. Election candidates would be subject to similar audits. Penalties would have to include disbarment of the delinquent politician from the body to which he/she was elected, plus jail sentences. And the system should operate in a way which would make it more likely that those who broke the laws would be caught.

Sean Fleming's incursion into this area of political funding is brave. He was financial director of Fianna Fail during the bonanza years from 1987 to 1997. He knows where the financial donations came from and, even more crucially, where the financial donations went.

If he chose to do so, he could enlighten us all a great deal more than he has to date. Indeed, apparently he could enlighten the party he served a great deal more than he has to date, and enlightening his employers could hardly be said to be in breach of client confidentiality.

Among the fascinating insights he could give us - and if not us then Fianna Fail - would be an account of what monies were raised for the party in the 1987 and 1989 general election campaigns and where that money went.

He also could tell us why he did not tell Bertie Ahern in August or early September 1997 that Ray Burke had got not just £30,000 from JMSE but a further £30,000 from the Fitzwilton Group. He could tell us why he did not inform his party leader on September 10th or shortly thereafter that in telling the Dail that he had given £10,000 of the £30,000 he had received from JMSE to Fianna Fail, Ray Burke was not telling the truth.

Sean Fleming has maintained that he cannot answer these questions because that would be cutting across the Flood tribunal. This is no longer a problem for Fianna Fail (as its own internal inquiry into donations to councillors for planning permissions shows), so he could do us all a favour, or at least his party a favour, and tell what he knows now.