Where have all the monies gone?

In the course of the 1987 and 1989 general election campaigns there was a series of rows within Fianna Fail between party fundraisers and senior figures within the party. The fundraisers were aware that senior figures had obtained large donations for the party but had failed to pass them over to the central fund.

One senior figure in 1987 was known to have retained a £10,000 contribution he had received from a businessman. A member of the fundraising team made it clear to him that if he didn't show up within a few days with a cheque for the amount he had received there would be big trouble. Within a few days he showed up with a cheque for £20,000 - he had confused which contribution was at issue.

We now know about a row with Ray Burke in June 1989. Party fundraisers were aware that he had received £30,000 from Fitzwilton and wanted it passed over. Burke was of the view that the contribution was intended for himself but compromised by handing over £10,000.

It has been alleged that Padraig Flynn got £50,000 from Tom Gilmartin, who, according to himself, intended the money for Fianna Fail. Mr Gilmartin alleges that Mr Flynn failed to pass over the contribution to the party. As far as is known, Mr Flynn disputes this, saying that any donation was clearly intended for his own personal political campaign.

Tom Gilmartin claims he told a number of senior Fianna Fail people, including Bertie Ahern and Charles Haughey, in 1989, of this contribution but, it seems, nothing was done about it.

The concerns within Fianna Fail in 1987 and 1989 over some donations to the party did not concern just the unfortunate senior figure who mistook a £10,000 contribution for a £20,000 contribution, or Ray Burke or Padraig Flynn. The concerns extended to others within the party, including Charles Haughey. A proper audit was never done to determine where donations ended up. And this was at a time when the party ran into massive debt.

It is hardly surprising that concerns were expressed about the nature of the campaigns run by Bertie Ahern in his own constituency of Dublin Central. This is because the campaign he conducted was the most lavish in the State - in the poorest constituency in the State.

In answer to a series of questions I put to Bertie Ahern in August 1997, he said the costs of his 1987 election campaign were "very low" because he was forced to conduct a restricted campaign as he was Lord Mayor of Dublin at the time. He said the costs of the 1989 campaign were "slightly less" than £20,000, the 1992 campaign cost him £10,000 more, he said, and he did not then know the costs of the 1997 campaign.

Even on Mr Ahern's own figures the costs of his campaigns were very high by any standards and exceptionally high in terms of the constituency concerned. But others in the constituency are of the view that the estimated costs of these campaigns, as provided by Bertie Ahern, are very conservative. He funded a large canvassing team and he bought massive advertising poster sites throughout the constituency - the only candidate of any party in the State to finance huge billboard advertising for his personal campaign.

He said he financed this through fund-raising lunches and dinners and that the largest single contribution he obtained was £1,000. He said he financed the ongoing costs of his constituency operation - again possibly the most elaborate in the State and including a house costing £100,000 and a flat where he has lived for some of the last 10 years - through an annual Christmas function at the Royal Hospital, Kilmainham. Asked if he always handed over donations he was given on behalf of the party, he said he always did so and he denied there had ever been any controversy within Fianna Fail concerning donations he received on behalf of the party.

Nobody believes Bertie Ahern salted away monies due to Fianna Fail for his own personal purposes - whatever money Bertie Ahern got one can be assured he used it for political purposes. But given the costs of the campaigns he himself conducted, it would be surprising if there had not been controversy over the proper destination of funds he received. By itself this might not be anything of consequence.

His difficulty is that questions about the funding of his election campaigns echo some of the questions that arise about Ray Burke and, now, Padraig Flynn. They also merge into a broader question about accountability for Fianna Fail funds generally, especially during the period around 1989. There is unlikely to be reassurance that all questions concerning this have been answered until a thorough independent investigation is made into Fianna Fail party funds - what money was received on behalf of central party funds, how much of this did not get to central party funds, what happened any monies that were diverted, and on what were these monies spent.

There are several people who could be helpful about this and they include Bertie Ahern himself, who for some of the period was a party treasurer, Padraig Flynn, who was also a party treasurer for a while, Ray Burke, who may have information about the finances of the party that extends beyond himself and his constituency, Sean Fleming, the Laois-Offaly TD who was the party director of finance at this crucial period, Frank Wall and Pat Farrell, past general secretaries of the party, and Paul Kavanagh, who was its chief fundraiser for most of the period that Charles Haughey was Taoiseach.

The members of Fianna Fail have a right to such information. So have those who made donations to the party.

As has been pointed out in this column on a few occasions, it is not only Fianna Fail that has questions to answer about its finances and fundraising. Serious questions remain unanswered about how Fine Gael managed to rescue itself spectacularly within a year of coming into office in December 1994, from the financial ruin that threatened it in the previous three or four years.

The legislation sponsored by Eithne FitzGerald designed to clean up party political finances is inadequate. This is because it leaves in place the private funding of the political system. This, unavoidably, corrupts the political system by biasing it in favour of people with money, against the interests of people without money.

A necessary (but not sufficient) precondition of an honest political system is that we pay for it out of the public purse and on the basis of equality. Thus, every qualifying candidate in a general election campaign (qualifying by virtue, say, of getting 500 "nominations" from constituents) should get a fixed amount of money to finance their campaign and be allowed to spend only that amount (thus candidates would be precluded from spending even their own money on election campaigns). And political parties should be financed solely through a fixed equal stipend, supplemented by a contribution from the State for each registered member.