Fate of political funding Act test for new Dail

One of the key issues in the new Dail will be the fate of those parts of the Electoral Act to which, in opposition, both Fianna…

One of the key issues in the new Dail will be the fate of those parts of the Electoral Act to which, in opposition, both Fianna Fail and the Progressive Democrats raised strenuous objections. The aspects of the Act which relate to the disclosure by politicians and parties of donations given to them are particularly relevant, and became an issue briefly in the course of the campaign on foot of a letter sent by Michael McDowell to potential donors.

A case can be made, not only for maintaining the Act as it is, but even for strengthening it to make the funding of Irish politics more transparent.

Public unease about this issue is only partly related to the fact that until now politicians were in many cases not obliged to reveal details of the ways in which their political activities were financed by third parties. Now that this is coming out into the open, there is increasing public scepticism about the apparently boundless altruism of people who give money to - politicians without - receiving, or even hoping for, anything in return.

Altruism is probably not the right word. It is understandable that politicians should see companies (and individuals) with substantial liquid assets and considerable disposable income as fair game. Equally, shareholders in many companies, public or private, are not answerable to anyone except the tax authorities in relation to how they spend dividends.

READ MORE

Some payments, however, are made for political purposes out of company coffers, rather than out of the private purses of those who own or control them. This raises the question: should we be told, when companies make decisions to fund political activity out of company funds, who benefits, and by how much?

Put another way: what is the use of focusing on one end of the drainpipe to see what comes out, if we don't also focus on the other end to see who's putting it in? The experience of the United States, and of the multifarious ways in which individuals and corporations find ways around the quite stringent laws on political funding, gives little grounds for supposing this new legislation will achieve the entirely laudable objectives for which it was drafted.

Many companies, it must be said, probably contribute to political parties and individuals on a pro rata basis simply because it saves a lot of trouble, and have no intention of distorting or in any way influencing the democratic process. There is, however, no substantial legal requirement on any company to account for its actions in this regard. Should companies now not be put under the same obligations as the politicians?

A number of banks and other companies have, in recent years, begun to make some disclosures of payments for political purposes in their accounts, and this is all to the good. It is rarely the case, however, that these figures are disaggregated, so that the punters (be they shareholders or consumers) can see in any detail exactly; what the company is doing, exactly - how much they are paying, and to whom. Many companies, of course, do not disclose anything at all.

It is now almost a quarter of a century since, as an independent member of Seanad Eireann, I introduced a Bill in the Seanad entitled the Companies (Amendment) Bill 1975. The apparently innocuous title of this Bill, which was supported by Mary Robinson and Michael D. Higgins, was more fully spelled out in its subtitle: "An act to provide for the reports of directors of companies of gifts for political and charitable purposes".

The Bill would have required company directors to reveal details of all gifts for charitable or political purposes, including the amounts and the names of the recipients. The welcome it received was, to put it mildly, underwhelming. The media ignored it. The political parties, by and large, averted their gaze.

I had one letter from a worried, and patently honest, manager of a small bank branch who felt, entirely reasonably, that some modest limit might be put into the Bill - I think he suggested £25 - below which political or charitable donations would not have to be disclosed. For all practical purposes, however, it sank without trace.

That is, until the 1977 election, when I wrote a speech for Frank Cluskey, which he delivered at a meeting in Cork, drawing the public's attention to the Bill and its implications. Again, the public reaction was virtually nonexistent: but in private, he told me afterwards, at least one senior financial executive let him know, in no uncertain terms, what he thought of the proposal. Somewhere, somehow, a nerve had been touched.

Is there any reason why we should not now go the whole hog and make what some companies consider good practice obligatory for all? At one level, it can be a protection for companies themselves against political intimidation or blackmail. At another, it would perform the invaluable function of letting shareholders know what is being done in their name, and letting consumers who may have strong political convictions make informed choices about the companies they favour with their custom.

There are no technical reasons why it cannot be done. Britain has had such legislation for many years, and the political effect of publishing the information - as newspapers are happy to do - can be significant. If we are to have accountability for political funding, let's have it down the line.