There was no great difference between giving a donation to a politician for election expenses and a group of supporters or friends making a contribution to a politician in financial difficulties, Mr Charles Haughey told the tribunal yesterday.
Mr John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, referring to the £750,000 settlement of the AIB debt in early 1980, said he took it that as a holder of the office of head of government, Mr Haughey would not have wanted to be beholden to anybody.
Mr Haughey said the main purpose of the exercise was not to be beholden to the AIB, or subject to public pressure by it. Mr Coughlan said it would be inappropriate for a Taoiseach to be beholden to anybody financially.
"It all depends on the meaning of the word beholden. I would think it would be valid for individuals or institutions to support a political person because they believed in him or her and what they were doing for absolutely totally disinterested motives," Mr Haughey said.
Mr Coughlan said there were two levels of support. One was normal political support - contributions made to politicians to enable them to fight elections or service clinics. Was that the type of support he was talking about?
Mr Haughey said it was both.
Mr Coughlan said he was talking about support beyond funding a Taoiseach's living expenses.
"No, to alleviate the financial difficulties of a particular politician. I'm quite sure in modern political history that it's happened time and time again. I'm thinking of the sort of situation where a group of friends would come together and out of purely altruistic motives assist a particular politician in a particular spot of difficulty," Mr Haughey said.
Mr Coughlan said if a public man was supported by individuals, surely it was a public matter?
"I don't see there's any great difference between that sort of support to assist a politician in a particular difficulty and a group of friends or supporters assisting the same politician in discharge of his public duties or fighting election campaigns or running constituency offices. I can't see there's any big line of differentiation," Mr Haughey said.
Mr Coughlan asked: "Is there not the risk that first of all the public person may behave, even subconsciously, more benignly to the interests of such people? Isn't there the risk that the person who makes the contribution would feel that they were in some way entitled to preferential treatment?"
Mr Haughey said: "No, that does not follow. There are many public-spirited people who subscribe to political parties and to individual politicians and who have no anticipation of anything other than the political success of the individual."
Mr Coughlan said: "The political success of a party or individual because that was giving rise to a policy which somebody favours and wishes to support."
Mr Haughey said: "No, no, no. Because they are doing a good job, because they are running the country well, because they are engaging in initiatives which are beneficial to everybody, as I think I continually did."
Mr Coughlan said Mr Haughey saw no distinction between political contributions, say for elections, and personal contributions to support a public person in office. Mr Haughey said: "To support his public career, yes."
Mr Coughlan said if a politician wanted, for example, to live in a bigger house, would it be appropriate for an individual or group to support that politician in his private life? "Not in that particular situation of moving from one house to another, to move to a bigger house, no," Mr Haughey said.
Mr Coughlan asked if it would be appropriate if the politician had run into financial difficulties by trying to maintain a position.
Mr Haughey said there were "many reasons apart from the one you mentioned which could give rise to such financial difficulties, then I cannot see that it would not be legitimate for a group of supporters or friends with no ulterior motive whatsoever to come to the aid of that politician".