The issue of corporate donations to political parties is usually approached from the perspective of the damage it has done to the body politic and democracy in general. The relationship has not been entirely beneficial to business either.
What we have learned in recent years about the links between business and politics is close to creating - if it has not done so already - a climate whereby any Government action that can be construed as remotely good for business is cynically viewed as pandering to vested interests.
The ink was hardly dry on the Finance Bill before eyebrows were raised over why the Government decided to scrap the tax measures that were supposed to force land owners to develop zoned land.
It is hard to quantify what direct damage such general cynicism does to business. One thing is clear, it has fostered an environment where companies find it hard to get the benefit of the doubt as Esat Telecom found last week. The revelation, six years after the event, that Telenor - one of the owners of Esat Digifone - gave $50,000 to Fine Gael in the months after the company won the licence to operate the second mobile phone licence rekindled a controversy that all concerned thought had burned itself out long ago. The extent to which Mr Denis O'Brien, then the chairman of Esat Telecom, was involved is a matter of dispute.
No impropriety has been alleged but the reality is that the publicity of last week cannot help his cause as he prepares to bid for Eircom's fixed-line business which will involved winning over 480,000 small shareholders. If eIsland is successful in its bid for Eircom, Mr O'Brien can look forward to somebody highlighting the fact that two members of the Eircom board that accepted his offer are linked to political parties to which he gave £50,000 donations in recent months. The chairman of Eircom, Mr Ray MacSharry is still an influential figure in Fianna Fail and chairs a committee that deals with the selection of general election candidates. Mr Paul Mackay is treasurer of the Progressive Democrats. It goes without saying that both are men of unquestioned integrity and would follow the appropriate guidelines on perceived conflicts of interest, but that will not stop people pointing out the possible conflicts of interest. Last week's revelations highlighted another - less obvious - way in which business does itself no favours by being the main source of funds for politicians and political parties.
The system that evolved has given incredible influence to a small number of politically-minded businessmen who become bag-men to the political parties. Once again last week we gained an insight into the way these men work and the strange set of rules by which they operate. As reported in this newspaper last week, the late Mr David Austin appeared to play a very important role in Jefferson Smurfit in addition to his day job as executive vice-president, sales and marketing. He acted as an adviser when politicians came looking for money from Dr Michael Smurfit and the Smurfit Group.
Although Mr Austin was clearly allied to Fine Gael, he was the person Dr Michael Smurfit consulted after Mr Des Traynor approached him as a possible donor towards the fund he was putting together to bail out Mr Charles Haughey in 1989.
Both Mr Traynor and Mr Austin are dead and are not in a position to explain the dynamics of their relationship, but Mr Austin - a staunch Fine Gael supporter - was made aware that the former taoiseach and leader of Fianna Fail was bankrupt and seeking personal handouts from leading Irish businessmen.
Presumably he kept this information to himself, because it is hard to believe that Fine Gael would not have made capital from it if they were aware of it.
Instead of blowing the lid on Mr Haughey, Mr Austin, for his own reasons, kept his counsel and Mr Traynor's trust. He could do this even though he was well enough regarded in Fine Gael that when he was taoiseach, Mr John Bruton, could take his phone-calls to talk about party finances.
The result was a continuation of a political culture that can hardly have been deemed to have been good for Ireland or Irish business in the broader sense, although it may have benefited some sectors and individuals. Labour and Fine Gael have already decided to stop accepting corporate donations and bring forward legislation to ban them if they are returned to government. Fianna Fail has yet to cross this Rubicon, although some in its ranks are in favour of such a move. It is time for the business community to enter the debate, possibly through the office of IBEC or one of its other representative bodies.
The main intellectual - as against pragmatic - argument for business being allowed support political parties is that it enables them ensure that parties friendly to business remain in power. It is a weak argument in the Irish context given the current political landscape. It is hard to see a government of any hue being formed which would not pursue broadly pro-business policies. Such intangible influence hardly seems worth the backlash it created.
jmcmanus@irish-times.ie
