Private cash for politics unacceptable

There was no groundswell of public support for a massive pay rise for TDs but that did not deter it. There was no groundswell of support for the purchase of Farmleigh House or for the purchase of an executive jet to ferry ministers around. So why does Bertie Ahern think that without such a groundswell it is not possible to clean up Irish politics through the total banning of all private funding of the political system?

The answer is that along with Mary Harney, John Bruton and Ruairi Quinn, Bertie Ahern wants to clean up Irish politics - a bit. He and they do not want to get rid of the inbuilt advantage that private funding gives them above other parties that might emerge which would not attract private funding.

We know of the proposals to cap individual donations, but how could that be monitored when there could be an indefinite number of supposedly separate donations? And as for the row between the Coalition parties and the Opposition on corporate donations, what possible difference does it make whether money comes from a rich corporation or a rich corporate owner?

The reality is that private funding is always corrupt, irrespective of the intention of the donor and the perspective of the recipient. Because money never comes without strings attached.

Does Bertie Ahern really believe there were no implications when he got tens of thousands of pounds at his annual personal fund-raising bash at the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham? Does he think that the money he got from private donors that was used to finance by far the most lavish personal election campaigns in the State in the poorest constituency in the State was got without implications?

Does John Bruton believe there were no implications when he got money for his party from Michael Smurfit in the immediate aftermath of his election as Taoiseach in December 1994? Does he think there were no implications when he got money from Ben Dunne?

Does Ruairi Quinn believe that the favour done at his request by Independent Newspapers in the autumn of 1997 when he was campaigning for the Labour leadership had no implications? Or that the money he got from Fitzwilton for some election campaign or other also had no implications? Does anyone believe that if returned to office Ruairi Quinn would have any stomach for taking on the monopolistic power of Independent Newspapers? (I am not suggesting that the opinion-poll stunt of November 1997 which helped him to secure the Labour leadership was "bought" on a commitment to favour the interests of Independent Newspapers, but "men of the world" understand how the system works.)

Does Mary Harney believe the vast amount of money that the Progressive Democrats got in its first heady years has no implications (the implication being that whatever the exigencies of those affected by public expenditure cuts there would be massive tax cuts to benefit the rich)?

But aside from the strings factor, any private funding of political parties is corrupt because it biases the political system against the interests of those who cannot afford to fund a political party. How can we continue to permit the equality that supposedly is at the heart of the democratic process to be subverted by money?

Mary Harney claims that any corruption legislation will not turn dishonest politicians into honest politicians and, by implication, such legislation is pointless (if there is not such an implication in her statement what is the point of it?). Could this mean that she thinks there is no point to anti-theft legislation for it will not make dishonest citizens honest?

There has to be legislation to keep honest politicians honest and to catch dishonest politicians. This should involve the establishment of a commission with the powers of a tribunal to inquire into the finances of politicians and parties. It should have a mandate to do an annual audit of the finances of each of the parties, plus an additional audit in the immediate aftermath of a general election campaign, to determine that the parties spent no more than the money given to them by the State.

The commission should have a mandate to audit the finances of individual politicians on an ad hoc basis and to audit the finances of each politician at least on a three-yearly basis. Anybody caught using private money in politics should be barred from holding public office again and be subject to a six-year jail term.

Meanwhile, the gyrations of the parties over the Frank Dunlop revelations are hilarious. One Fianna Fail gentleman has been mouthing off about what will happen to anybody found guilty of corruption. This gentleman received thousands of pounds in cash in a brown paper bag at his home prior to an election some years ago and a further cheque for some thousands more pounds, and then used his position to do a favour for the person who organised these thousands of pounds for him.

I am eager to give full details of that little scam to any tribunal that is interested, along with details of an affidavit by the person who carried the brown paper bag to the politician at his home. Fianna Fail knows full well who this politician is. But you can bet that nothing will be done about it, unless the politician is uncovered by a court or a tribunal.

Fine Gael has also added to the general merriment. Having established a committee of inquiry to report to the party leader and the Flood tribunal in its frenzy to be seen to be whiter than white it published the committee's report without telling those who gave it information that that was what was going to happen.

And then it selectively believed the protestations of some about their good intentions in receiving relatively large sums of money from a former Fianna Fail press secretary and not the protestations of others - Anne Devitt certainly seems to have legitimate reason to complain.