What my friend Brian Cowen once comically called the nanny state raised its woolly hat above the parapet this week. My respected constituency colleague, Eamon Gilmore of the Labour Party, objected to the raising of the spending limits by candidates at election time.

Noel Dempsey's Electoral Bill has wisely provided for an increased but modest ceiling on spending per candidate at the next election. On Morning Ireland the awakening nation was treated to another conspiracy theory about Fianna Fail, namely its plans to buy the Irish electorate with ill-gotten corporate gains.

Given that Fianna Fail is the majority party in Government, I suppose it is a Fianna Fail conspiracy of sorts. The proposals, however, are sensible and were hatched in the open. The current spending limits are so restrictive that Labour was censured by the Public Offices Commission for exceeding them in Dublin South Central and Dublin North by-elections.

This is only a minor kerfuffle and will pass. The more serious point being raised by Labour is that basically politics should be State-supported. I do not agree. Politics is organic. It is from the ground up. It is subject to sudden and fundamental changes. It is the instrument of the people through which they mediate their aspirations and concerns.

In large numbers the people have chosen to express themselves through Fianna Fail. Occasionally they have chosen candidates as diverse as Sean Dublin Bay Rockall Loftus and Jackie Healy-Rae. New parties such as the Progressive Democrats and the Greens have emerged. All have carried with them the aspirations of their electors. Each in its turn has replaced apparently deeply embedded local or national political establishments.

Our system of Proportional Representation allows the people to fine-tune the political system with remarkable sensitivity. This they regularly do. The State funding of political parties will be a deadening hand. It will put upon the taxpayer a burden few want and many will resent. A new golden circle will be instituted in place of the one it is supposed to replace. This one, however, will have the force of law. It will put a perimeter around politics that few newcomers will be able to penetrate. The political nation not only will be cosseted - it will be corseted as well. The resulting atrophying of politics will be a remedy far worse than the disease it is supposed to cure.

State-funded parties would weaken the democratic process within parties. The leader would not be dependent on his parliamentary colleagues and members to raise funds. He or she would not only be financially independent of the members, they in turn would actually be dependent on the leadership for their budgets at local level. This would bring democratic centralism to new heights.

Politics at large will be disabled in the face of special interests who will not be confined to the State dole being suggested for political parties. Trade unions, farmers, anti-mast, anti-dump, anti-halting site, pro-life, pro-abortion or any other special interest will have an unfettered capacity to raise and spend money on political campaigns. So long as those campaigns are not specifically in support of a candidate at election time they will have a free run.

Elected politicians alone have a mandate from the people. Political parties, not special interests, however legitimate, can mediate the will of the entire national community. Putting political parties on a State stipend that would be only grudgingly given by most taxpayers would give the whip hand to the unelected and the unaccountable single-issue campaigns.

The argument being advanced for this cure by amputation is that politics is in some way fundamentally corrupt. It is held that the nexus of politics and money is invariably a cesspit. The fumbling political hand must be kept out of the greasy till.

There are two fundamental points to be considered. First, only a very few politicians have ever betrayed the trust given them by the electorate. Yes, the allegations of transgression are profoundly shocking. More distressingly, they have shaken the confidence of a generation in the conduct of public life. Looking back at politics since the foundation of the State, I believe the transgressions of the few highlight the integrity and patriotism of the many.

Second, the administrative framework for public life has been changed fundamentally since the events now being described at the tribunals took place. Radical reforms have been put in place about the accounting for and the disclosure of political donations. The Ethics in Public Office Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Local Government Bill 2000, the Prevention of Corruption Bill and the Standards in Public Office Bill provide for an array of prescriptions for public life. Serious punitive consequences for non-compliance are also provided for.

Two weeks ago the Taoiseach announced a further and far-reaching set of proposals for ordering public affairs. Limits are to be placed upon how much a candidate or party can receive. Additionally, there will be a statutory obligation for the establishment of a special political purposes account into which it will be an offence not to channel political donations.

It is highly unlikely if many of the events now being described at the tribunals could take place, let alone go undetected for long, under our new regulatory regime. No system is fireproof against corruption, however. The ultimate remedy for failure in the political system is unfettered choice in the ballot box.

It is precisely this unfettered choice that the State funding of political parties would undermine. Free choice depends on unfettered access between the electorate and candidates. State funding would effectively create a privileged platform for those already with a mandate.

FUTURE aspirants, those with new ideas, those who will not go along with the status quo in their respective parties will be shut out. They will not be funded from the public purse. If they raise funds up to the modest limits now being proposed, openly declare the source of these funds, put them in a specially designated account and certify that the funds raised are for legitimate political purposes only - they will still not be allowed to use them. This is effectively to cut the umbilical cord between elector and elected.

Fundraising is only a means to an end. Under our existing political dispensation, which is entirely voluntary, politics depends on the freely given support of volunteers and supporters. The political party which cannot organically attract the voluntary support of committed citizens will wither on the vine. Many have. State funding would be a respirator for the politically enfeebled, the electorate would be frustrated in their usually ruthlessly efficient turning off of the switch.

The strict limits on amounts receivable, the total transparency required for the source of and spending of political donations as well as the heavy consequences for transgression are a powerful safeguard against corruption. The ultimate sanction must always be at the ballot box.

One aspect of Noel Dempsey's Bill does give me some unease. Photographs of candidates are now to be on ballot papers. Perhaps a new offence of airbrushing should be enacted. Mirror, mirror on the wall - who is the fairest of them all? At least my ageing blushes will be spared.

David Andrews TD is a former Minister for Foreign Affairs