A prominent businessman who makes regular - and sometimes quite large - donations to politicians is currently making plans for a business venture in a sector in which he has not operated before. He believes the political donations he has made will be of assistance.
"They tend to listen to you if you can get to sit down with them," he says of politicians. "That's the advantage of having given them a few bob. The idea that you can buy things is a bit naive, but donations help you get access so you can have your case heard. There's no point in having a good idea if you can't get your case heard."
The businessman emphasises his view that once you do get an audience with a Minister, a case will stand or fall on its own merits. Donations will not influence the final decision.
He donates money to politicians from all the main political parties. "There's not a whole lot of difference between them all when you tot it up," he says. Making contributions and getting to know politicians helps build relationships and trust. "Its a straight-forward human thing. If there's a party in power and they don't know you from Adam, then you might have a difficulty."
A significant amount of his business involves public contracts but the businessman says he has never felt that "if we never gave a party a few quid we would be hard done by". He believes the vast majority of politicians are honest, and points out that civil servants are heavily involved in most decisions. He doesn't think a case for a contract can be won on anything but its own merits.
He adds: "I'm not saying you won't get access if you don't make a contribution, but I think the donation does no harm." Political parties need to get funding somehow, he says, "and from a business point of view donating probably does help".
The new rules governing disclosure of contributions over a certain value to politicians and political parties, introduced by the Electoral Act 1997, are something he favours and do not cause him any unease. Yet he does not want to be named, because of the scandals which have arisen in recent times in relation to political contributions. The disclosure rules also mean he and his company now make significantly smaller contributions than hitherto.
"You'd be afraid of your life to give them too much money because people would think it was for this or that or the other," he says.
Mr Sean Fleming, who was financial director with Fianna Fail up to his election to the Dail 18 months ago, also says business is less inclined to contribute to politicians and political parties since the introduction of the new disclosure regulations.
He points out that donations given in confidence in the past are now being disclosed in the course of tribunals and other inquiries. "With all the various revelations emerging in the media and from the tribunals, business would rather shy away from the whole area. Is it a problem for the parties? Of course it is."
He says that over the past two decades or so, there has been a growth in the making of donations to individual politicians rather than political parties. This has occurred in tandem with the growing costs of candidates' campaigns. "This is where a lot of the difficulty has come from. All the scandals have to do with donations to individuals candidates."
While public companies in the past tended to make donations to the mainstream political parties, sharing out the funds pro rata to the parties' representation in the Oireachtas, Mr Fleming says private companies were often controlled by individuals who made large donations to the party they felt closest to. However the new disclosure rules now make such contributions less likely.
"People feel that politics is private. Donations are published by the Public Offices Commission and the names go in the national media. People don't like that. Also, a company can be in line for a public contract and people will say it only got it because of a donation. Its a double-edged sword. There is a risk and its understandable if people shy away."
The Public Offices Commission is charged under the Electoral Act 1997 with monitoring political donations. The data it has been publishing seems to support the view that the introduction of the new rules is causing business to move away from supporting politics. However it should be borne in mind that a general election was held in 1997.
The new law came into operation on May 15th, 1997. Donations to individual politicians of more than £500 (€634) from that date must be disclosed to the commission. In the period May 15th to December 31st, 1997, 75 TDs and senators received £283,060, according to data published by the commission. However, during all of 1998 only 20 TDs and senators received donations of more than £500, and the total was £75,885.
The largest amounts raised by individual Oireachtas members in 1998 were by the Fianna Fail TDs Mr Liam Lawlor (£17,600) and Ms Marian McGennis (£15,100), with the bulk of the money coming from golf classics. By contrast, the 1997 lists are dominated by straight donations from business people and companies.
Under the new law, donations of more than £4,000 to political parties must be disclosed. The total contribution under this category to the political parties in the period May 15th, 1997, to December 31st, 1997, was £384,000. The total for 1998 was £750,642, but a significant proportion of this was contributions made by companies towards the campaign for a "yes" vote on the Good Friday Agreement.
Irish Life donated £75,000 towards the "yes" campaign, sharing it out pro rata among the parties. A spokesman said it is only the second time the company has made a political contribution and that normally such contributions "are not seen as something which falls naturally on corporate Ireland, from the point of view of the company's responsibilities towards its shareholders".
Marathon International Petroleum Ltd, which contributed £10,000 to the Fianna Fail "yes" campaign, said it has a policy of not contributing to political parties but made the donation as a non-party-political contribution to the initiative to create a peace.
Mr Larry Goodman's company, AIBP, gave £20,000 towards the Fianna Fail "yes" campaign. "The company has been investing in the North of Ireland since 1980 and is committed to doing business in the province. Therefore it considered it appropriate in the light of the Good Friday agreement to make the contribution it did," said a spokesman.
Beamish & Crawford contributed £5,151 to the Fianna Fail campaign by way of donating the use of advertising billboards. "Beamish & Crawford has for a number of years been involved with Co-operation North and we were delighted on this occasion to be in a position to support the `yes' campaign," said Mr Alf Smiddy, managing director.
However, while a number of companies were willing to issue statements in relation to their support for the Good Friday Agreement, it was more difficult to find companies that were willing to discuss normal financial contributions to politicians and political parties.
One company prepared to discuss the issue was Waterford Crystal. It makes regular contributions to political parties. A spokesman said the decision to contribute was taken by the company and not by the Waterford Wedgwood group. The company resumed the practice two years ago after emerging from a period of financial difficulty. It donated £50,000 to Fianna Fail in 1997 and £15,000 to Fine Gael last year.
"The company believes in the democratic process and chooses to support political parties which support democratic principles. The company wishes to be a good corporate neighbour." The donations are noted in the group's annual reports.
The only corporate donation to the Progressive Democrats noted in the Public Offices Commission list for 1998 was £5,000 from Irish Life, which was for the party's Good Friday Agreement campaign. Joint party treasurer, Mr Paul MacKay, says the party's strategy is to look for smaller-sized contributions, but more of them. He says the party feels that large donations can create the impression that the party is "compromised".
"We have in the past sent back cheques to meat companies where there were strings attached. They were for four figure sums, not large. The strings were implied, they wanted certain laws looked at or certain administrative changes made. They were told thanks but no thanks."
Mr MacKay said the low level of corporate contributions to the PDs could be "because they see there is no point in giving the party money because they won't get anything out of it".
Lobbyist Mr Stephen O'Byrnes, of Business Insight, says the bulk of the requests he is aware of to his company or its clients, are for amounts of £100 or £200 for golfing classics and other fund-raising events. "You are dealing with people who have been helpful and have assisted with advice and made themselves available. Their fund-raisers are cajoling them for names of people they can push for donations. People are nervous about making contributions and understandably so, yet business understands the role played by politicians."
Mr O'Byrnes, a former PD election candidate, says his advice to his clients is that they should make donations but on a modest scale so there can be no suspicion that there is any attempt to buy influence.
Mr Fleming believes the time has come to outlaw corporate donations altogether and to put a ceiling of £1,000 on donations from individuals to politicians and political parties. An additional £4 million per year from the Exchequer would allow the parties to be totally funded from the public purse. "We are spending many millions of pounds per annum on the various tribunals and the root cause in many cases goes back to payments to politicians," he says. In the meantime, parties will have to direct their attention towards golf classics, raffles, and other such events. "You need a lot more people involved, with each giving less; and that's a healthy thing."
