Despite legislative changes, we remain in the dark about the financial solvency of political representatives and political parties, writes Elaine Byrne
The acceptance by the Taoiseach of loans and donations totalling €60,000 in 1993 and 1994 once more highlighted the traditional dependence of Irish politicians on political contributions.
Some 13 years later, this dependency has not changed.
In spite of the proliferation of legislation introduced to regulate the funding of Irish politics in the intervening period, the acceptance of similar loans or donations is perfectly within the current legal parameters, subject to disclosure. The Tánaiste has now asked the Taoiseach to change the legislation in this respect. But why stop there?
So what, if anything, has changed between 1993 and 2006? On the face of it, a lot. Yes, the Ethics, Electoral, Local Elections, Standards, Prevention of Corruption and Oireachtas Acts have brought greater accountability to the whole process of the financing of elections, the disclosure of donations, the registration of interests and the enhanced scrutiny of Exchequer funding for political parties.
But if you scratch beneath the surface ... Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.
Currently, there are no provisions to account for the total annual finances of political representatives. There are no provisions to account for the total annual finances of political parties. Such estimates would incorporate Exchequer funding, donations above and below the disclosure limit, membership fees, national draws and other sources of fund-raising.
This is the case in the United States for example. As it stands, we remain as in the dark in 2006 as we were in 1993 about the financial solvency of political representatives and political parties.
A limit of €6,349 now exists in what can be donated in any given year by the same donor. However, the price tag of a general election has, if anything, become more expensive.
The total disclosed donations to all political parties and representatives over an eight year period amounted to just over €5 million. These figures are available on the Standards Commission website. There is an obvious disparity, given that it is estimated that a total of €14.8 million will be spent by the three main parties in just one year at the next election.
It is estimated that Fianna Fáil will spend €10 million before the next polling date while Fine Gael confirmed it would spend €4.3 million and Labour confirmed it would spend €1.5 million (Village magazine, September 7th-13th, 2006).
If we break it down even further and examine the 2002 general election, the disparity is even more obvious. In the last election the Standards Commission accounted for election receipts totalling just over €8 million.
The donations disclosed by political parties and individuals in that same year, 2002, amounted to just over €700,000. In the absence of publicly available audited accounts, where did the difference of €7.3 million came from?
Not from Exchequer funding obtained under the Electoral Acts and the Party Leaders Allowance Act, because this legislation specifically prohibits the use of the funding to recoup expenses incurred at an election or a referendum. Neither does this legislation permit the promotion of a candidate prior to the election period.
The propriety of political parties is not being questioned here, but in an era of demands for greater accountability and transparency and where perception rules supreme, is it not in the interests of political parties to make publicly available their audited accounts? As shareholders in our democracy is it not in our interests to view them?
There are, of course, ways around the legislation on political funding. The election expenditure limit only comes into play when the election date is officially announced, some three or so weeks prior to the election date.
The Standards Commission is not required under the legislation to monitor any expenditure incurred by those political parties campaigning and electioneering prior to this period. Those parties, particularly those with the power to exercise the writ, have in the past exploited this loophole.
The Irish Times calculated that in the three months before the 2002 General Election writ was passed, Fianna Fáil had spent approximately €3.5 million (The Irish Times, June 12th, 2003).
A robust case exists for limiting the amount of money spent between elections at both local and national level. An accountable limit on spending during and between elections is warranted. As it stands, a level playing-field for all candidates does not exist in practice.
The legislation does not uniformly apply to all elected representatives. Those elected to the Dáil from a political party are more stringently regulated than Independent members of the Dáil, members of the Seanad and members of local authorities.
For instance, Independent members of the Dáil and Seanad are not required to furnish the Standards Commission with a statement of expenditure in relation to their annual allowances (€30,649 and €17,415 respectively) obtained under the Oireachtas Act.
There are no provisions for the limitation of election expenditure in Seanad or local authority elections. Given the findings of the Mahon tribunal, and ongoing incidents of alleged impropriety at local authority level, it is curious that the local government accountability framework is not as stringent as its national counterpart. The Taoiseach's actions have muddied the waters of accountability and transparency in relation to political funding, but perhaps they were already muddied and waiting to be stirred.
• Elaine Byrne, University of Limerick, is the author of the forthcoming Transparency International, National Integrity System Country Study on Ireland. The study is funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform