The concern over political controversies has faded, and already the escapades of Ray Burke, Michael Lowry, Charles Haughey and others are becoming distant memories. Mark Brennock explains
There was a flurry of activity for a few years since the mid-1990s, as politicians, in the face of incontrovertible evidence of the poisoning of the political system by its links with business, acted to weaken the link.
But as for the corporate funders of politics - they haven't gone away, you know.
Martin Cullen is championing proposals to bring business interests back into the democratic process. He has said he wants the cap on corporate funding raised, and the business sector - rather than any democratically determined regime - to decide how much money each candidate or party will have to fight elections in the future.
There may be a limit, but it will be high enough to ensure those not favoured by wealthy donors will be severely disadvantaged. In addition, and with the explicit support of the Taoiseach, he wants to increase the limits imposed on how much parties can spend during election campaigns.
Cross-party piety on the need to distance business from politics didn't last long. Fine Gael chose to take the high ground before the last election, deciding not to accept substantial corporate donations. Now it has abandoned this stance. Labour has chosen not to solicit corporate donations, but to accept those that come in. Its leader, Pat Rabbitte, argues with justification that the distinction between corporate and personal donations is bogus: indeed, the €50,000 donation it returned before the last election was a personal one from Mr Denis O'Brien.
For some years now Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have been chipping away at the rules on the business funding of politics, and on the limits on what parties can spend at election time.
These rules were introduced because waves of scandal had led voters to believe that important elements of public life had been corrupted by money.
When the McCracken inquiry found Mr Haughey to be a kept man of Irish business, the 1997 Electoral Act placed limits on spending by candidates and parties at election time, and established disclosure limits for political donations. The legislation was drafted by the Fianna Fáil-Labour Party coalition and eventually passed by the Fine Gael-Labour Party government. In compensation for the donations forgone from the business sector, the various political parties were given €1.27 million in State funding.
In the eyes of the Fianna Fáil-PD Government, this obviously wasn't enough. Two years ago, as the general election approached, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats decided to gut the Electoral Act. They raised the disclosure limit for corporate donations and capped it at €6,348. Individual politicians were allowed to receive individual donations worth €2,538. Spending limits in constituencies were raised by up to 45 per cent. And State funding for political parties more than doubled.
More significantly, when the Standards in Public Office Commission sought to include all pre-election spending as relevant under the Act, the Government objected. This resulted in the ludicrous situation whereby parties - in particular Fianna Fáil - could say with a straight face that they had abided by the legislation, having spent vast and unaccounted for sums before the Dáil was dissolved.
Now they are back for more. Mr Cullen, interestingly, was the highest individual recipient of political donations in 2002, while his party is, of course, the highest collective recipient. He insists, however, that his wish to raise the limit is not based on self and party interest, but out of concern for the taxpayer. Taxpayers, he said, should not be asked to fund the political system.
Of course, he can't believe this. The taxpayers will pay €81 million this year to fund the Houses of the Oireachtas. They fund ministerial salaries and all the machinery of national and local government. They pay for the voting and counting process at election time, for the President and Mr Cullen's own political advisers and constituency office.
No, there is only one aspect of the political system he believes the taxpayer should not pay for: the election campaigns run by his party and others.
Under the regime promoted by Mr Cullen and supported by many in the Cabinet (and who knows what the Taoiseach thinks?) those vying for political power should have their ability to fund their campaigns, get their message across and win support dependent on whether business sees them as worthy of funding.
We are so used to this situation here and in other countries that it seems like a tired old leftie cliché to say this is a perversion of democracy. But it is.
There is some strong dissent within the Government on this. The Minister for Communications, Mr Dermot Ahern, has stated bluntly that the more slight the link between business and politics the better.
In an apparent response to the regular protestation from business that it gives money to political parties "to support the democratic process" rather than anything so tawdry as trying to buy political power for those who would act in its interests, Mr Ahern has suggested business could do this by paying into a common election fund. This money would then be distributed proportionately to the political parties.
As a quid pro quo he proposes the breaking of the link between trade unions and the Labour Party. He says the trade union movement gives significant funding to Labour even though most of their members don't vote Labour.
Somehow it is difficult to imagine that such a central fund would attract as much business funding as the present system. But there is a thin line between healthy competition and buying votes, and allowing the corporate sector decide who runs the best funded campaign pushes politics on to the wrong side of it.