Enough is enough. The public is punch drunk from revelations of backstairs dealings and corrupt payments in the political and planning systems. Last week the Fine Gael leader, Mr John Bruton, spoke of a crisis in the State and of the need to comprehensively renew Irish politics. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, the Tanaiste, Ms Harney and the Labour Party leader, Mr Quinn, all agree there is a pressing need to win back the confidence of the public. In these circumstances, where donations of all kinds to politicians and political parties have come under critical scrutiny, it is difficult to argue that corporate donations should be allowed to continue.
The need to re-establish some measure of confidence among the citizenry is now paramount. It follows that it would be better to err on the side of comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, reform. Introducing new disclosure obligations and limits for corporate donations would not remove the fog of suspicion that has shrouded the interface between politics and business. It might even encourage the use of methods to circumvent such rules. But if corporate funding is to go, then funding from trade unions and other associate organisations should also be banned in order to provide a level playing field. The funding system used in Quebec, Canada, where all corporate and foreign contributions to political parties are banned in favour of limited contributions from citizens and party supporters from personal, after-tax income, topped up by State funding, might be a useful template.
All political parties agree on the need for greater transparency in the funding of political parties and for new limits on donations. Even within those constraints, however, given the secretive nature of politics, efforts will inevitably be made to conceal the size and nature of income. The latest report from the Public Offices Commission suggests that companies were advised to keep their donations at £4,000 or less if they did not wish to be publicly identified. As a result, not a single company donation exceeding £4,000 was returned by either the Progressive Democrats or the Labour Party. Fine Gael returned three company cheques of exactly £4,000 which were only identified because of additional contributions. And 10 of the 19 Irish donors identified by Fianna Fail had lodged cheques of £4,000 with some small extra funding. Such a procedure is perfectly legitimate under the law. But it does not engender public confidence in the transparency of the system.
The funding of political parties and contributions to politicians are just some of the issues that require early legislative action. Many can be addressed through amendments to the Electoral Act and the legislation covering local elections. A register of political lobbyists is also required, with full disclosure of their clients and interests. In that regard, the transfer of money from a lobbyist to a politician or to a political party should be banned. Penalties for breaches of the new rules should be severe. Fine Gael has already suggested that the onus of proof should be transferred to the respondent in such cases.
Politics and its public image is in need of refurbishment. In the present climate, the cleanest and clearest action would involve an ending of the corporate linkage with politics and the transfer of that financial responsibility to ordinary citizens and to the State purse. The State already contributes significantly towards the election expenses of candidates and party funding. Increasing that allocation would be fully warranted in order to restore faith in the political system.