TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 17 °C Thursday 20 June, 2013

Column: Remember how SIPO went after politicians for fiddling their expenses? Me neither

There were two elections and two referendums last year – and yet, political parties received just €31k in donations. What’s going on, asks Aaron McKenna.

Aaron McKenna

LAST YEAR WAS a busy one in Irish politics, kicking off with a general election and being tail ended by a Presidential one and two referendums. Despite blanketing the country in posters, advertisements, leaflets and more our political parties declared the grand and sum total of €31,000 in donations during 2011.

I have no particular allegation to level against any individual or party in Irish politics. However, we know that when politics meets money in Ireland rather bad things can happen and the public interest forgotten. We only tend to find out about political corruption after rather unfortunate happenings, like ill considered comments on a Late Late Show appearance, or cocaine fuelled implosions in a Florida hotel, or via a jilted ex-wife.

Even if we leave aside corruption and look merely to influence peddling, we know from the work of Trinity politics lecturer Elaine Byrne that during the boom years Fianna Fail received the majority of its donations from… Go on, guess. Two words, first starts with a P and ends with a Y, second begins with D and ends with S, and the letters ‘ropert’ and ‘eveloper’ feature.

Despite this we still operate a political funding system that allows such a ludicrous joke of “disclosure” to go almost unremarked upon.

The weaknesses of SIPO and how it needs to change

The Standards in Public Office Commission is the arbiter of political glasnost. It is about as independent from the Oireachtas as a chihuahua is from Paris Hilton’s handbag. The rules are stacked in favour of the politicians by the politicians in about the same stringent manner as TDs set their own pay and conditions.

You may remember SIPO from that time it went after a (now former) Taoiseach because he couldn’t produce a tax clearance certificate, a basic requirement of being a TD? Or that day it nailed Oireachtas members for fiddling their expenses and submitting false invoices? Or maybe you recall how politicians quaked in their boots when SIPO promised to investigate any suggestion of the misuse of ministerial travel expenses? No? Really…? You can’t remember any of that? How bizarre. Neither can I.

You, me and Joe McCarthy can sleep soundly in our beds tonight however, because SIPO is making sure there won’t be any dirty reds hiding underneath: The Communist Party of Ireland failed to submit the proper paperwork declaring their non-declaration of donations and have been referred to the Gardai for investigation and face possible prosecution. The moral foundations of our democracy are safe at last from this pervasive menace.

Three of our twelve registered political parties declared the paltry handful of donations in 2011. Fianna Fail, the Socialist Party and Sinn Fein are the only parties in the Irish state who received more than €5,078.95 – the limit after which a donation must be declared – from any one individual. The maximum value of donations which a political party can accept from the same donor in the same year is €6,348.69.

This is not an abnormal year for political donations: In 2009, a year with local and European elections, neither Fianna Fail, Fine Gael nor Labour (among others) declared any donations above the threshold.

“If the rules can be circumvented today then they can be circumvented tomorrrow”

Political parties avoid having to declare donations through a variety of means that are perfectly within the rules, and the system makes it nigh impossible to say if those rules are ever breached. We are left to assume that nobody involved in or donating to Irish political parties could ever have the hauteur to breach our trust.

There is, for example, no record of how many folks submitted €5,078.00 in donations. And if such an individual so happened to cross a church gate collection, say, and drop in another €1,000 in rolled up €50 notes there would be no real way to tell latter that it had happened. SIPO itself suggested in its 2009 annual report that it suspects that individuals break up donations into smaller amounts and pass the parcel around to others to avoid disclosure.

The limits are being reduced by the present government, from €5,000 to €1,500 for declaration of a donation to a political party and from €635 to €600 for an individual politician. Of course, if the rules can be circumvented today and there are now new controls put in place then they can be circumvented tomorrow.

The trouble is that we don’t really know for sure what’s happening behind closed doors and in murky backrooms where political capital can be traded for the real deal. If rules are being broken, we’re powerless to know and the organ responsible for keeping politics honest is about as useful as a raincoat in a swimming pool. And we don’t have any insight into who is trading cash for influence – And let us be clear, anyone who is donating up to €5,000 to a political party is a rational economic actor in most cases. It would be nice to know even who they are.

Aside from donations from private individuals and businesses the other major source of political funding is you and me, Joe and Jill Taxpayer. On top of their salaries, expenses, staff and dry cleaning we chucked our politicians €12.6m in exchequer funding to the parties last year. Quite what they spend that money on is unclear, because the disclosure rules are about as transparent as those for private donations. From past glimpses we can see that things like media training and a car featuring Enda Kenny’s face were procured using the exchequer funds.

Exchequer funds are designed in principal to wean political parties off of private donations. We have a typically Irish way of doing it, however, in that the funding is gerrymandered to favour the existing stalwart parties and prevent any upstarts from gaining traction. The Oireachtas has voted in a system whereby parties can only receive funding based on their representation in the Dail, which is a rather narrow way of apportioning funds.

‘There are serious issues at the heart of the relationship between politics and money’

Somewhat amusingly, though hardly surprisingly, the funding for parties was linked to civil service pay increases. As SIPO glibly observes there was no accounting for what should happen to political funding if pay decreases.

Just like the weakness of SIPO and the holes in the rules around donations, it suits the bigger parties in Ireland to ensure that they cream the majority of funds and ensure that any upstarts are outspent and outshined by default. Perversely, the only real way for any new political movement to gain traction is for it to have a number of deep pocketed donors.

While we may joke that asking for reform of the political funding system is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas, there are serious issues at the heart of the relationship between politics and money. We’ve suffered too many indignities at the hands of politicians who have preferred the pound to the judicious exercise of power; and it is not fair that our tax money should be gobbled up by political parties who, not coincidentally, design the system for apportioning it.

SIPO should get teeth to police political parties, to the point of having surprise audits of their accounts and showing up unannounced at church gate collections to observe and – more importantly – let the parties know they’re observing. Declaration limits should come down to a petty cash amount, like €20 or €50. We can vote in secret, but every vote is equal. When giving money it should be declared and out in the open.

The political funding system should also be opened up to help seed new entrants to the field of politics. Not a bottomless pit of money, but an amount apportioned based on things like local election results or national membership figures. Giving more money to incumbents who already have a host of natural advantages simply cements their position in life.

We could look at a totally state funded political system, but only if the funding is severely curtailed – frankly, less money for wasting on wall to wall postering and pestering – and if the arbiter and watchdog is an independent body with real teeth.

Aaron McKenna is a businessman and a columnist for TheJournal.ie. You can find out more about him at aaronmckenna.com or follow him on Twitter @aaronmckenna.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (18 Comments)

  • All political donations, regardless if amount (but we’ll be somewhat reasonable and say any over 500 ? to any candidate or party), should be a public record. So the othet parties, the media, elections & law enforcement scrutiniers and any member if the public at large.

    Reply
  • I stood in Galway west as an independent in the feb 2011 gen. Election. Sipo threatened me with a Garda visit if I did not fill out their 27 page claim form which they had POSTED out to 547 candidates despite the fact I had told them i would not be claiming expenses. Sipo works off 1997 electioneering legislation that is 15 years out of date. There is not a single reference in their guidelines to using digital information technology instead of the litter of posters and pamphlets and other environmentally damaging and wasteful, of taxpayer’s money, election bumf. The first standards that sipo should check, as I pointed out to them in an email, are their own! Uinseann Holmes

    Reply
  • anything over 20 euros should be declared and any or all fundraising from abroad should be declared no matter what the amount.

    Reply
  • Are donations tax deductible? If so the Revenue should have records. Could be interesting reading and a step to uncovering who is giving what.

    Reply
  • All donations to be declared! !!
    When they need our vote they preach transparancy, so they should have nothing to hide. These people ask for our vote to be in the public eye and their actions to be scrutinised so every aspect of their political life should there for us to see! !

    Reply
  • That’s an interesting piece and it echoes my own thoughts. For all the constant furore over political scandals the supervisory regime remains pretty non-existent. I ran in the 09 local elections (Fianna Fail), first time runner and very keen to get setup with everything and engaged with all the proper procedures etc. I can say firsthand that there is no pot of gold available for candidates, be they party backed or otherwise. Each candidate basically sources their own campaign funds which is possibly part of the system that contributed to problems of accountability and questionable funding in the first place. Anyway for my own part I was partly self-financed (thank you credit union) and partly supported through small local donations (€20 a head at a race night). Nothing unusual about any of that, fairly standard fare for any party or independent candidate. Anyway long story short I got hold of all the candidates’ campaign accounts afterwards (anyone can do this, public record via the local authority) and a few things struck me. One there was very little correlation between candidate profiles and amounts raised – e.g. you could have an independent candidate with a veritable pot of gold and you could have a party candidate operating on a shoe string. And within parties you could have two or more candidates from the same party all spending and receiving vastly different amounts. It also seemed to make relatively little difference to one’s chances of election which is surely a good thing. In a sense the only pattern I could discern though was that there was no pattern. The key point that struck me though was how relaxed the authorities seemed to be about the whole thing. Having made it my business to obtain and review all the campaign accounts for the area (upwards of 50 candidates across the County Council region) I could immediately spot basic anomalies in many of them. Internal totals not tallying, subtotals incorrect, no supporting documentation, orphaned figures etc. Now I want to stress I am not suggesting for a moment any mala fides on the part of any individual in involved. But if there had been it was not at all obvious or even likely that it would have been caught or followed up upon. Once the accounts were submitted and filed by the deadline the authority seemed to consider that job done. Most candidates appeared to just file in a hurry viewing the whole thing as an inconvenience just to be gotten out of the way. For all the supposed transparency and governance we now expect as standard there seemed to be shockingly little supervision, review, audit or sanction contained in any of it. It seems nothing happens or will happen until the horse has bolted and is on its third generation stud farm. All of which I suppose can be summarised in the original question raised : Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Reply
  • Another fine article Mr McKenna.
    This country is in serious need of deep-rooted political reform.
    Society is always going to bear the cost when law-makers so blatantly circumvent the law.
    Our nation with a full-time parliament is crippled with debt, political incompetence and corruption.
    Switzerland has a part-time national parliament and it’s debt is repaying itself.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/swiss-debt-now-repaying-itself

    Reply
  • I have always held reservations about voting in parliamentary elections where the real agenda of the candidates and their parties is more in the interests of their corporate donors and supporters than the people who elect them. The abiding I feelingly I carry away from the polling station is that I have in some way colluded in a corrupt and debased system where my vote wont carry the purpose of it’s intent.
    You can be assured that, once elected, the less publicised promises of politicians to their financial backers and party advisors are of greater concern than the more openly stated though more readily broken promises to the electorate. Unfortunately rather than spoil my vote, or indeed not vote at all, I usually decide to vote for a rank outsider so as to at least get some satisfaction from my vote by helping some poor bugger get his election deposit back!

    Reply
  • I can now confirm that there’s utterly no truth in the rumour that SIPO is soon to be renamed: LO-SIPO (Low Standards – In Public Office)! lol!

    Reply
  • I’m reminded of Sean Gorillagher and his donations of “up to five thooosand euro”. Something which no one in the media saw as worthy of noting. This is widespread, and yet another example of political intransparency. Great article again, Aaron.

    Reply
  • SF TDs claim they donate approx 60k of their salary back to the party, did report cover this?

    Reply
  • Corporations can’t vote, but currently they can donate. €1500 and €600 are far too high. €500 and €101 would be more realistic (not everyone who attends a party dinner should be named). Finally, SIPO need to adopt a zero tolerance to all politicians who they find breaching the law: correspond, collect evidence and refer it to the DPP and let her decide.

    Reply
  • Paul 02/06/12 #

    How about we get rid of all the leaflets, posters and other clutter and waste. Every candidate gets one page in a booklet produced by an independent body. They put what they like on their page and every home gets one booklet with all the info on each of the candidates. They could put heir website on there for those who want to do further research. No need for fundraising, no need for useless posters, and one manageable piece of election info for all of us to consider and no need, and no excuse, for dodgy deals, envelopes, favours etc

    Reply
  • judicial review by SinnFein cost taxpayer 200,000 euro, should they be made pay for this stunt?
    The idea that they give the balance of their salary over the average industrial wage should be a matter for revenue.Who believes them when also the money they take for non appearance in UK parliament shold also be subject to scrutiny. They are not feeling austerity and mouthing about their constituents ,crocodile tears.

    Reply
  • Where, oh where , is Cardinal [not] Sean ?

    Reply
  • I never going to vote again

    Reply

Add New Comment