The use by Mr Jim Mitchell of the results of a private opinion poll in his campaign for the Fine Gael leadership appears to raise a number of issues under the Electoral Act, according to rules explained yesterday by the Public Offices Commission.
As several senior Fine Gael figures privately expressed unease over the development, it emerged that using such a poll without knowing who paid for it is questionable under existing electoral legislation.
A spokesman for the Public Offices Commission confirmed yesterday an Oireachtas member receiving a donation of money, property, goods or services worth over £500 must know the identity of the donor. "If you do not know the name and address of the donor you cannot accept the donation," the spokesman said.
Mr Mitchell said on RTE Radio on Monday he did not know the names of those who sponsored the poll. "I do not know who they are," he said.
A Public Offices Commission spokesman yesterday declined to comment on this specific case in which a group of people funded an opinion poll testing support for alternative Fine Gael leaders, and measuring party support. However, he outlined rules which indicate the giving of the poll outcome to Mr Mitchell's campaign was a declarable donation.
Such donations must be declared annually, and the next date for declarations is January 31st, 2002. In addition, any gift worth more than £500 must be declared under the Ethics Act.
The poll results showed Mr Mitchell with a clear lead over the favourite, Mr Michael Noonan, in almost all regions and social classes. The results were given to Mr Mitchell before they became public through The Irish Times on Monday.
Mr Mitchell used them at the weekend to win support for his leadership campaign. This would appear to fit into the category of a donation of goods or services being used for political purposes.
An MRBI poll such as the one conducted by so far unnamed individuals would cost over £10,000. While the poll may not have been commissioned solely for Mr Mitchell's benefit, it was used for his benefit. It is understood the results were used by Mr Mitchell over the weekend to seek support for his campaign. It therefore appears Mr Mitchell is obliged to declare the poll as a donation.
If, as Mr Mitchell has said, he does not know who paid for the poll, then it appears he should not have accepted it and used it for political purposes. These details must be included when the donation is being declared to the Public Offices Commission, prior to public release.
Mr Mitchell said on Monday there could have been up to 30 people involved in the group behind the poll. "They wanted change in the party. A group of people - I don't know the full group - but one person came to me who . . . said that a group had come to him saying they could do this."
Contacted about this last night, Mr Mitchell said: "I don't need to be told what I need to do in relation to ethics." Asked about what appears to have been his acceptance of a donation without knowing the names of the donors, he said: "I'm well aware of the rules. I'll have to look at the situation and see what to do and then I'll declare whatever I'll declare."
Meanwhile, there is some concern among senior party figures that private and unknown individuals attempted to influence the parliamentary party to oust Mr Bruton through commissioning and paying for a private opinion poll. The poll appears to have been commissioned by people who wanted Mr Bruton removed as party leader before the heave against him began.