Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Lisbon parties’ hypocrisy on funding
Read more about: Blogging, Coalition, Democracy, Election Results, Election Spending, Europe, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Foreign Affairs, Government, Green Party, Irish Politics, Labour Party, Lisbon Treaty, Lisbon Treaty, Parties, Polls, Progressive Democrats, Referenda, Sinn Féin
Even before the Irish people’s democratic decision to reject the fatally-flawed Lisbon Treaty, (which would have deepened the democratic-deficit in Europe still further), the source of Libertas funding was a bane of “yes” campaigners. To the elite, the possibility of the ‘mainstream’ parties being so decisively outspent by this upstart pro-business group with financial interests abroad (like many FF/FG benefactors) with no elected representatives was tantamount to heresy. Note the observations of the ‘Paper of Record’ on the matter today: “Of the €11.8 million spent during the last general election campaign, less than €2 million could be publicly traced. This gap in legislation can encourage external meddling in our domestic affairs. Spending by the “No” campaign in the Lisbon referendum, and particularly by Libertas, exceeded that of all the major parties. But we will never know the source of the money.” To be lectured on outside interference by a newspaper whose support for the Treaty, if realised, would have led to unprecedented outside interference in our internal affairs by Europe and by the European Court of Justice in particular (through the Charter of Fundamental Rights), is very ironic. But the gift of irony is not to be found wanting from the other mouthpieces of the European federalist project either. The eternal Dick Roche, Minister for European Affairs and arguably the face of Fianna Fáil’s “yes” campaign, charges that statements by Libertas’ about it’s funding are “simply not truthful”. According to figures compiled by the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland (IAPI), which monitors advertising spend in the outdoor and print media, on the internet, on TV and in cinemas, the anti-Lisbon Treaty group spent €912,753 on advertisements in places such as newspapers, billboards and on buses.
Throughout the campaign, the organisation, responding to different media, gave differing figures about its budget, before finally settling on a €1.3 million figure, insisting that the money had come in small donations.” It is clear that if you add up the figures that the budget must have been above €2 million,” Mr Roche claimed. “It comes back to the question, where did they get their money from?”. Labour spokesman Joe Costello likewise slates the organisation as: “It is unacceptable that a single wealthy individual whose business interests are largely based outside this country should be able to use his wealth to influence the outcome of a constitutional referendum and at the same time not have to disclose the source of the funding.”.
The “yes” side are the last people with a right to lecture others on fundraising. The report of the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) for 2007 is instructive. They found that the State’s 14 registered Dáil political parties disclosed just 13 per cent of what they claimed they spent in their General Election campaigns. Sipo said political parties disclosed donations worth €266,485. Sinn Féin and the Greens received €187,223 and €29,750 respectively from their elected representatives. Fianna Fáil and Labour each disclosed three donations totalling €19,044 and €18,648 respectively. Both Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats furnished no donation statements. Fine Gael has filed no disclosures since 2001. Political-parties are only required to disclose political donations over €5,079. The report indicates that Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, Sinn Féin, the Greens and the PDs spent €10.2 million in last year’s General Election - te vast majority of which is undeclared. Fine Gael’s representatives and unsuccessful candidates disclosed in donations just 7% (€191,095) of what was actually spent, compared to 18% for Fianna Fáil (€648,000) and 1.6% (€8,079) for the Progressive Democrats.
People in glass-houses shouldn’t throw stones. The right to fundraise should not be the preserve of elected officials, who all too often in world history have been shown to be prone to inducements to act and advocate against the public good, as the Act of Union and the French parliament’s 1940 vote to establish the Vichy Regime show. We must never return to the dark says preceding the McKenna judgement which removed the ability of yes campaigns in referenda to crowd out dissenting voices by monopolising both fundraising and airtime to peddle propaganda for their causes.
First I’ll respond to your last paragraph :
The right to fundraise should not be the preserve of elected officials, who all too often in world history have been shown to be prone to inducements to act and advocate against the public good, as the Act of Union and the French parliament’s 1940 vote to establish the Vichy Regime show. We must never return to the dark says preceding the McKenna judgement which removed the ability of yes campaigns in referenda to crowd out dissenting voices by monopolising both fundraising and airtime to peddle propaganda for their causes.
The right to fundraise should not be the preserve of elected officials :
True, it should not, is not, and no-one is arguing that it should. No problem there.
elected officials … who all too often in world history have been shown to be prone to inducements to act and advocate against the public good, as the Act of Union and the French parliament’s 1940 vote to establish the Vichy Regime show
Wow. Your trust in elected officials isn’t too high. You have soo little faith in them. But what other kind of officials would you like to govern if not elected officials? Un-elected officials? And you complain about a democratic deficit in the EU! While it’s true that corruption, self-interest and incompetence forever dog democracy, and we should forever strive to improve upon it, it is a bit unbalanced to judge the achievements of the whole body of elected officials through modern democracy, by reaching back two hundred years and picking out two examples which, while not very flattering, occured in very particular circumstances. Not that this kind of breakdown could’nt be repeated - but that it is not typical and is a very very poor way of judging the evidence for the success or otherwise of ‘elected officials’.
Back to the main piece: true there is far too much obscurity around political funding. We should strive to make it a political issue and hope we can open it up.
Still, I find it interesting the way your own argument can be turned on you. You see irony by equating the influence of the European Union (which you despise) with the influence of outside meddling in our affairs through funding. But you do not give a direct and clear opinion on where or not you would be critical of Libertas if much of their funding came from outside the state. True the same should apply to other parties. But on the face of it, Libertas funding is suspiscious. Why? Because, unlike the other established parties which have a huge presence on the ground, and who run many and varied visible fundraising events, and who have considerable memberships, Libertas is new, has none of this, and has links which do not prove, but give reason to suspect, outside influence or ‘assistance’.
But let me be clear: I utterly abhor the opaqueness of political donations and I would urge full transparency for all parties.
The question for you is: would you utterly condemn outside interference via funding, including Libertas, if it can be shown to exist? Or are they ok because they share your view of the European Union?
“You see irony by equating the influence of the European Union (which you despise) with the influence of outside meddling in our affairs through funding.”
No Tomaltach I am actually in favour of the EU as things stand, but that is not the same as being uncritical of it. For the past 13 years the EU Court of Auditors has not signed-off on the EU accounts. Martha Andreassen and Paul van Butinen were sacked for blowing the whistle on the corruption surrounding the accounts - the official reason being ‘disloyalty’ in the former case. This is symptomatic of what happens when you concentrate too much power in the hands of unelected officials. Granted it can also happen and does in the hands of elected officials too - as we know here in Ireland only too well - but unlike the Commission proper democratic-accountability exists to hold Irish politicians to account for their malpractice where it occurs. Your accusations that because I am not uncritical of the EU I “despise” it, is reminscent of the Fox News tendency to label Americans critical of the Bush foreign-policy as haters of America. If some of us on the no side are full of criticism of the EU, then it is a function both of the length of time during which problems went ignored in a media and political climate (especially pre-McKenna) in which full and proper debate on Europe was marginalised by an excess of resources and coverage in favour of the “Yes” side, meaning much that should have been scrutinised was not, and also the fact that there is indeed much than needs improving in the hallowed halls of Brussels, to which many in the Irish elite aspire to graduate one day (and have done).
I for one have read and heard various contradictory versions out of the mouths of the ex-Freedom Institute kids who made up Libertas’ “directors” as to whether (and what date from) they were employees of Libertas and/or of Ganley’s Rivada company.
Given that it is hard to excape the conclusion that there have clearly been porkiestold to the Irish public on this score by Libertas, I’d say that the onus is on them first to come clean on what’s going on with respect to how their operation works.
And based on a suspicion I have that ‘FutureTaoiseach’ is very much from the same FI gene-pool (irregardless of whether he’s not himself a member of Libertas), I’ll invite him to clear the matter up here with any information which he might have. So - what about it?
EWI your suspicion is wrong - I have never been a member of the FI or Libertas. The calls for disclosure from the other parties will hold no water with voters while they themselves fail to take their own advice.