Only the most impetuously judgmental would draw any conclusions from the evidence which has so far been presented to Mr Justice McCracken's tribunal sitting in Dublin Castle. We have had two days of a process which may take some weeks. We have had the most extraordinary and sensational claims and allegations. But we have yet to hear from the politicians, the recipients and alleged recipients of Mr Ben Dunne's largesse. And we have yet to learn the results of the inquiries undertaken on behalf of the tribunal as to the ultimate beneficiaries of that generosity.
But a number of things are already apparent and will undoubtedly have come as a jolt to the generality of the public which is not directly involved in political activity. Mr Dunne was to the main political parties a sort of money pump to which they felt they could have recourse as and when funds began to run low. What ever the truth of his dealings with Mr Charles Haughey or his business arrangements with Michael Lowry, it is common case that his party donations were regular and large. Even if the tribunal uncovers nothing else un-toward, many citizens will be aghast at the notion of this sequence of respected, senior political figures dropping around to Ben for a pot of tea and a cheque.
It is true there is hardly another family in the country with the disposable wealth of the Dunnes, but it seems reasonable to ask, if Mr Dunne has been such a ready and willing source of funding, which other business figures have done likewise, albeit perhaps in proportion to the scale of their respective fortunes? According to Mr Dunne, it was proposed that a number of people should contribute funds for Mr Charles Haughey but Mr Dunne undertook to meet the required sum himself. It would be fascinating indeed to know the names of the other would be benefactors. Unfortunately, Mr Des Traynor, who is credited by Mr Dunne with the origination of such a plan, is deceased.
Many politicians and commentators have stressed the necessity of differentiating between money which was contributed for legitimate party needs, money which allegedly went to meet the personal needs of individual politicians and money or benefits which were put through unorthodox channels in respect of business dealings. And they make the point that business contributions for party purposes have always been a legitimate part of the political process here.
It is the tribunal's task to establish the truth or otherwise of the allegations which have been made about individual politicians receiving cash. Mr Dunne's graphic details of the past two days pose questions for it which are of quite momentous proportions. Audi alteram partem is an immutable principle of our legal system and, indeed, of natural justice hear the other side of the story.
But whatever transpired between Mr Dunne and Mr Haughey, there can be few disinterested individuals, following the proceedings since Monday, who would resist the argument that the funding of political parties must be regulated, that legislation must be put in place to prevent abuse and that the Exchequer must accept the burden of paying for democracy. The scale and extent of payments however legal and whatever the custom and practice presents a truly disturbing vista. Yet the Government's proposed legislation to regulate the situation remains stuck amidst the wrangling at the committee stage in Leinster House.