Money has corrupted the Irish political system

MONEY has corrupted more than some politicians and some public servants. It has corrupted the political system fundamentally and in a way that has caused deep injustice and unfairness. It has caused the ultimate "cosy cartel". The most obvious manner in which money has corrupted politics has been in the "buying" of some politicians by people with access to vast wealth.

One such person boasted to me 12 years ago that he had "bought" a minor political figure, who would stay bought. The person had contributed relatively large amounts of money supposedly to this politician's party election campaigns. Sometimes the contribution was delivered in cash in brown envelopes.

When that minor political figure assumed a position of minor power, he rewarded his benefactor in a manner I cannot specify, lest I identify either the politician or benefactor. It is enough to say the reward proved disastrous for the State. This same politician has recently been among those protesting his concern over the recent revelations concerning Ben Duane's payments.

Aside from this, I am aware from another authoritative source of very large financial contributions intended for Fianna Fail being appropriated by members of the party.

The reason that this abuse arose was precisely that campaign contributors wanted to give money to party members personally, to underscore the indebtedness that was arising implicitly. The contention of John Bruton and others that contributions to party or personal election campaigns are made without "strings attached" is bogus. Certainly it can be accepted that in most instances no explicit quid pro quo is specified, but there are "understandings".

At the very least, large contributors will enjoy access to ministers. For instance, it is obvious that very recently representatives of the Dunne family enjoyed access to the Department of Finance to discuss changes in the tax laws that would enable them to avoid a possible tax liability of £80 million.

It is just not believable that this privileged access did not derive, in part at least, from the Dunne family's generosity to Fine Gael and Labour election funds and, possibly, to individual Ministers as well.

MILLIONS of pounds have gone through the accounts of the political parties, and unknown amounts of money have gone through the accounts of individual politicians over the last decade and beyond. We have no way of knowing to what extent the political system has been bent by the flow of such money. But it would be naive to believe that, at a minimum, there have not been compromises.

But in a more fundamental and really more important sense, money has comprehensively corrupted the political system, and this is where we get to the ultimate "cosy cartel". For so long as private funding of the political system takes place, then the political system will be biased in favour of the moneyed. This is so even where the highest standards of integrity apply within the parties accepting such money.

If the political system is funded by private finance, then the parties favouring the interests of people with money will have an advantage over parties favouring the interests of people without money. This applies whether the political system is funded in whole, as at present, or in part, as is proposed, by private finance.

This proposition is so self-evident that one wonders at the objectivity or integrity, or both, of those who dispute it. There may be valid disputation over the extent to which this biases the political system, but there cannot be a dispute that some bias is caused by private funding.

AT present there is widespread public opposition to the idea of any public funding of the political parties, but this has been presented to the public in terms of more cash for the boys. If the proposal were made in terms of less cash for the boys and far more accountability and fairness, the public reaction might be different.

So herewith some proposals:

(1) That candidates in elections are all funded equally from public funds. candidates emerging only on getting the written support of, say, 1,000 electors in their constituency (there would have to be some such qualification for candidates, otherwise people might become candidates solely to qualify for public funding).

(2) That all private money be disbarred from the electoral process, including the candidate's own financial resources.

(3) That an electoral commission be appointed to examine all campaign spending and to ensure that no expenditure was incurred other than that financed from public funds.

(4) That any candidate found cheating on this system face imprisonment and that a TD found to have cheated be removed from the Dail, in addition to the jail term.

(5) That all TDs and certain other public representatives and servants be required to make a full declaration of their personal financial interests and those of their spouses and that the electoral commission be empowered to investigate all the financial transactions of such persons on a spot-check basis and/or on the basis of a complaint.

(6) That any such person found to have made incomplete or false declarations be removed from office and be imprisoned for a stated term.