Three weeks ago I wrote in this column about Fine Gael's finances, how the party had been virtually bankrupt before it returned to government in late 1994 and had become flush with cash not long afterwards. I said that just as it was obvious that Charles Haughey had questions to answer about his spectacular enrichment while he was in government, so does Fine Gael.
In that article I noted John Bruton's assurance to the McCracken tribunal that there was no crossover between the work of politics and fund-raising, that party spokespersons would not be aware whether individuals had made contributions and "therefore could not be influenced in what they would be doing in opposition".
I referred to evidence given to the tribunal by the former FG leader, Alan Dukes, that he had arranged for Ben Dunne to meet Mr Bruton in the context of Dunne's promising a large donation to the party. I also referred to files that had come into my possession that suggested that Mr Bruton on a number of occasions had been requested by Mr Dukes to meet contributors to party funds. Mr Bruton was then spokesman on industry and commerce.
The following day John Bruton replied in furious terms to my column and offered explanations for the extraordinary transformation of Fine Gael's finances on its return to office. But the main point of the reply was to deny the suggestion that there was crossover between the work of politics and fund-raising.
Subsequent to that, I put 28 questions to John Bruton. He has replied to some of them and refused to reply to others because, he claimed, I am biased. Among the matters he has refused to respond to is the following:
Sixteen months ago, in December 1999, as leader of Fine Gael John Bruton wrote to several rich people inviting them to become members of an organisation called New Century Network, Perspectives for the 21st Century. They were to pay £4,000 for the privilege, just under the disclosure threshold. But the key point is that in return for this £4,000 per annum they were to be afforded "input into developing Fine Gael policy affecting business" and "to meet with Fine Gael policymakers to discuss business issues".
Could it be any clearer?
He told the McCracken tribunal on Monday, April 28th, 1997, in answer to question 59 on pages 13 and 14 of the transcript: "The work that the party might be doing in the Dail, raising particular matters in opposition, would be done, being done by individual spokespeople who would not be aware of whether individuals had made contributions or not and, therefore, would not be influenced in what they would be doing in opposition in that matter".
I asked John Bruton to comment on the offer of an input to policy but, in the course of his 1,155-word reply to my queries, there is not a mention of this. He avoided the question.
Now back to the flap of three weeks ago. He was indignant that I would suggest that as spokesman on industry and commerce he had met Ben Dunne in 1988 after Mr Dunne had made a substantial contribution to Fine Gael, and at the suggestion that he would have met other financial contributors to the party.
But what is the indignation about? What would have been so bad if he had met those contributors to party funds when he himself, as leader, should seek to institutionalise an arrangement whereby people would get an actual input into policy?
We are asked to believe that such was the integrity of FG under Mr Bruton that there would never be any question of favours in return for donations. But what is his "input into the development of Fine Gael policy affecting business" but a massive favour? Could there be a more blatant favour offered by an opposition party in return for cash?
As I reported three weeks ago, in the year before it returned to office Fine Gael's income was £783,000. In the year after its income nearly doubled (£1,406,000) and in the year it was last in office the figure was almost £2 million.
IN HIS response to my column three weeks ago Mr Bruton claimed the explanation for this was the more buoyant economy, Fine Gael's political stock was rising, the value of money was less. But how could this explain the virtual doubling of its income in the year after it returned to office?
Isn't it blindingly obvious that Fine Gael's financial fortunes were transformed because it returned to government? Even more disquieting since Mr Bruton apparently thought it was OK to arrange for financial contributors to Fine Gael to be afforded the only worthwhile favour that a party in opposition could offer - input into policy affecting business.
In his response to my questions, he has pointed out an error. I said Fine Gael spent almost £2 million in the general election campaign of 1997, as compared with just over half that in the 1992 campaign. I should have written that Fine Gael spent almost £2 million in the general election year of 1997, as compared with a little over half that in the general election year of 1992. He has further pointed out that there were additional expenditures in 1997 that did not arise in 1992 associated with the presidential election campaigns.
I will return again to the finances of Fine Gael.
vbrowne@irish-times.ie