Is there no end to the tide of sleaze? The revelations of former Government press secretary, Mr Frank Dunlop, may finally bring an end to the corporate funding of politicians and political parties. Two weeks of evidence detailing systematic planning corruption and payments to politicians before the Flood tribunal at Dublin Castle has shocked and dismayed the public. Meanwhile, the accumulation of ill-gotten gains, detailed yesterday by former local government manager Mr George Redmond, is nothing less than an obscenity. The Taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fail, Mr Ahern, has indicated a willingness to meet other party leaders over the next few days to try and establish a common position. But he has also exhibited a determination to retain a corporate funding element for future elections.
In that regard, he can expect support from Mr John Bruton of Fine Gael whose party favours corporate funding, but within tightly controlled limits and with full public disclosure. The Tanaiste and leader of the Progressive Democrats, Ms Harney, also prefers corporate funding within the context of possible reforms. Meanwhile, the Labour Party is determined to end all corporate funding and will table a Bill to that effect in the Dail next Wednesday. However, it would permit donations from individuals and affiliated organisations - such as trade unions - with a strict cap on donations. The Green Party is also opposed to corporate funding.
We are in the middle of a process of reform that began in the late 1980s. Back then, reports of a "golden circle" and revelations of irregular behaviour at State companies and the disposal of the Telecom Eireann site in Ballsbridge convulsed the political system and eventually led to the passage of the Ethics in Public Office Act and the Electoral Act. There was considerable initial resistance to both measures from both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, but they were insisted upon by the Labour Party and took effect in the late 1990s. The legislation now on the statute books is, as Mr Brian Allen of the Public Offices Commission has made clear, among the most advanced in Europe. And many of the reforms being talked about, such as a ban on corporate funding, lower donation limits and full public disclosure could be implemented by way of simple amendments.
Following the disclosures of Mr Dunlop and yesterday's evidence by Mr George Redmond, a shell-shocked public needs to be convinced that the murky interface between business, politics and the public service will be tightly regulated if not eliminated. The reaction to Mr Pat Rabbitte's admission that he took £2000 from Mr Dunlop in 1992 but gave it back after consultation with his constituency officers, may become a yardstick against which to measure other politicians. Mr Rabbitte did not inform the Flood tribunal about this "non-donation". And his judgement in accepting the money in the first place must be questionable. But what of other TDs and councillors who received relatively modest contributions towards election expenses? The question shows how difficult it is for the public - or for a politician - in a system that relies heavily on corporate funding, to draw a line between a "bona fide" donation and a vote-buying exercise. In view of the long-term health of the political system in this Statean end to corporate donations must be the best and cleanest solution.