TO listen to the general secretaries of the political parties and the politicians who gave evidence yesterday, you would wonder why business people pay money to political parties at all.
Fianna Fail's general secretary, Mr Pat Farrell, explained that "no favours are attached to any contribution, and if any were attached the contribution would be returned."
Fine Gael's general secretary, Mr Jim Miley, said that if any donation to his party involved the seeking of a political favour, "the donations would be returned, or refused if they had not already been paid."
The Tanaiste, Mr Spring, was equally adamant about his view of contributions. He raised funds from time to time for local projects, including the proposed Waterworld scheme in Tralee for which he successfully solicited £50,000 from Mr Dunne.
"I would not accept contributions if I thought there was the slightest hint" that there was some thought that the donor would receive a political favour in the future, he said.
The Minister for Finance, Mr Quinn, who received £15,000 towards Mrs Mary Robinson's presidential election campaign from Mr Dunne, said that "nothing whatsoever" was asked for by, or offered to, Mr Dunne by way of political favour.
Should Mr Dunne subsequently approach him on any matter, he would treat it in the same way as any other approach. "I never felt under any obligation to Mr Dunne," he said.
On the evidence, there would appear to be no advantage at all to be gained by business interests through making donations to political parties. But the parties, particularly Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, put considerable effort into persuading them to do so.
Fianna Fail and Fine Gael regularly send mailshots to business people seeking funds. According to Mr Miley, his party's mailing list includes "all of the principal businesses in Ireland."
They rely on the annual published list of the State's top 1,000 companies to compile the list.
Mr Farrell explained that Fianna Fail writes to companies and business people. There is a standard letter for this purpose, indicating that the request for money is made to a considerable number of people.
One must presume that the strategy works, as the process is repeated regularly. The parties are presumed to receive substantial contributions from business interests.
One must say presumed: we cannot know how substantial the contributions are because, as Mr Farrell put it, "contributions are made on a confidential basis."
In other words, business people who are prudent and successful and manage their affairs wisely enough to give them cash to spare regularly hand it over to political parties in exchange, apparently, for nothing at all.
Details of the generosity of just one of those donors has emerged through this tribunal. In 1988 in Myo's pub in Castleknock, Mr Ben Dunne met Mr Jim Mitchell TD by chance and gave him £5,000, half for Mr Mitchell's constituency expenses and half for Mr John Bruton's.
Mr Dunne was told in 1989 that Fine Gael was in debt. He met the then party leader, Mr Alan Dukes, in Barberstown Castle to discuss this matter. They talked about the role of the opposition for a while, and he then agreed to pay £30,000 a year to the party.
There was no suggestion that he would receive any favours, Mr Dunne said.
He ended up paying £185,000 to the party, including a cheque for £50,000 handed over to Mr Bruton in 1991 during a meeting in Mr Dunne's house arranged by Mr Michael Lowry.
Mr Dunne said throughout his evidence that he neither sought nor received any political favour in return for his generosity. One wonders whether this attitude is shared by other confidential political donors.
Politicians who argue that such confidential donations never raise issues of public concern might consider the situation in which Mr Quinn found himself last autumn.
Advisers representing the Dunne family trust (in which Mr Ben Dunne is no longer involved) had a series of meetings with officials from Mr Quinn's Department of Finance, to discuss the tax treatment of trusts. They sought a change in the tax regime that would benefit the Dunne family trust.
Mr Quinn made clear yesterday that he was not involved in those discussions, had no personal representations made to him, and accepted a recommendation from his officials that no change in the tax regime be made. It is clear that Mr Quinn behaved properly in the matter, and there is no suggestion being made to the contrary.
But what if the Department officials had recommended a change that would benefit the Dunne family to a considerable extent. If Mr Quinn had then approved this recommendation, what might he be accused of now, however unfairly?