WATCHING Questions and Answers on Monday last, it seemed clear to me that there is serious confusion in the public mind over money and politics. While politicians have themselves contributed to this, much of the confusion seems to be due to the manner in which three distinct aspects of this matter have been conflated by the media, viz, financial contributions to political parties and to TDs' election expenses; the tax implications of large monetary gifts to several prominent politicians; and suspicions of actual political corruption.
As to financial contributions, in the past these were normally made to political parties, either nationally or locally. So far as I am aware, individual politicians rarely received contributions on their own account.
The cost incurring activities of elections at constituency level are postering, the printing of the party's election address to constituents, rent of election headquarters, and so on. And traditionally, these are paid for by constituencies, out of funds raised by draws, race nights, church gate collections, and small subscriptions by individuals or by local businessmen.
However, in several recent general elections there has been a visible weakening of party discipline in both the main parties, which normally present more than one candidate. Costly "me fein" campaigns have been mounted by or on behalf of individual candidates in some constituencies - and in some instances this in turn has led to subscriptions being given to and retained by individuals for their own electoral purposes, instead of being passed on to their constituency organisations.
The sealing off of politicians from personal financial involvement in electoral campaigns, which had been a general feature of our political system over several generations, has thus partially lapsed.
The national campaigns by parties have been financed by levies on constituencies and by subscriptions to party headquarters from individuals or businesses at the national level. Since the 1970s, these national campaigns became more sophisticated - and consequently much more expensive.
This development threatened to give Fianna Fail a major advantage over Fine Gael because of Fianna Fail's traditionally greater access to and support for industry.
Fine Gael therefore sought and secured a shift in business sponsorship of electoral politics towards a system in which partisan financial support for one or other party was replaced by support from most companies for a range of parties, in amounts broadly proportional to party strengths.
The increased financial dependence of politics on business brought about by the soaring cost of national electoral campaigns was less than desirable. Nevertheless, given the negative mood of public opinion towards state funding of parties, there seemed to be no practicable alternative at the time. And some of the potential dangers of such financial dependence were contained by virtue of the fact that the parties were more or less proportionately indebted to individual firms or industries.
Moreover, in the case of Fine Gael at least, knowledge of the amounts subscribed was confined to the non elected person responsible for fundraising, and, on occasion, to the party leader, who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that subscriptions whose source might be dubious were returned to the donor.
Nevertheless, my unhappiness with this system led me as a backbencher to propose to the front bench of the party, I think in 1991, that it be substituted by a system of state funding, limiting undisclosed contributions from business or private sources to quite nominal amounts.
With some minor changes my proposal was immediately adopted as party policy, and was published by the Fine Gael front bench. A scheme along these lines was then brought forward as a Bill by Labour, in government with Fianna Fail - with, however, on Fianna Fail's proposal, higher thresholds for undisclosed contributions than Fine Gael had proposed. That Bill is in fact the genesis of the Electoral Act that was passed by the Dail this week.
So much for party contributions. There remain two other quite distinct issues. First, the current issue of significant personal payments allegedly made by Ben Dunne to two members of the Dail - which, it has been suggested, may not have been declared for tax purposes. These are the matters currently being dealt with by the tribunal.
Finally, there are the suspicions aired from time to time, or more often whispered, that certain politicians at national or local level may have accepted bribes in return for influencing decisions with significant financial consequences for individuals or firms.
On this latter point I have two comments to make. Throughout much of my political career I was seriously worried about these stories, some of which have been quite persistent, and which are quite widely believed in political and, I think, journalistic circles. I have feared lest our political system follow those of some European countries down an unhappy and murky path.
But I must add two points of reassurance on this subject.
First, the opportunities for financial corruption in Irish politics are relatively few simply, because the number of decisions with major financial implications, which under our system are left to unfettered political discretion, are few.
One of these, at local authority level, is, of course, well known - land rezoning. And the manner in which a couple of our local authorities have acted on a number of occasions has - rightly, or wrongly - encouraged suspicions of malpractice.
AT Government level, however, there have, been relatively few decisions in respect of which large sums of money are at stake, and where politicians have had unfettered discretion. Unhappily, however, in recent times the number of such instances has, unwisely, been added to examples being the designation of parts of towns for tax relief, and also the issue of Irish passports to foreigners who commit themselves to a residence here and to a significant Irish investment.
In cases like these one can but regret the failure of the government involved to realise the suspicions that can be aroused by the taking of such discretionary powers, unfettered by the application of objective criteria or adequate checks and balances.
But the last point that, above all else needs to be made, is that, nevertheless, all the evidence points to Irish politics throughout 75 years of independence having been remarkably free from the taint of financial corruption - due, I believe, to a combination of the high standards of the administrative systems we inherited from the period of British rule, and the extraordinary integrity of the revolutionary leaders who led our governments for the first 35 years of political independence.
What is striking is not that there have been suspicions surrounding a few of our politicians in the past 30 years, but rather that if people closely involved with, and well informed about, our political system were asked to name privately the members of the Oireachtas of any party who have ever been suspected, even by their bitterest political opponents, of financial corruption a very short list indeed would emerge.
There are few enough countries anywhere in the world of which as much could be said. And it would be a tragedy of confusion if public opinion about issues currently in the news were to persuade ours people otherwise. But it would, also be a tragedy if any cases: where reason for suspicion exists were not pursued by a vigilant press as well as by the gardai and prosecution service. {CORRECTION} 97051500114