The Taoiseach’s evidence before the Tribunal over the last few days unearthed a lot of interesting questions to say the least.

Most of these related to the complex tapestry of relationships and personnel surrounding the St Lukes constituency apparatus and are specific to the minutiae of that gargantuan knot. However one that deserves consideration in a wider context was the notion of a ‘political donation for personal use’. Many commentators scoffed at this notion. The Taoiseach did not help with his reference to €500 worth of raffle tickets being compulsory purchases every weekend. But let’s explore the theme more broadly with a hypothetical example.

Consider John and Sue, Dubs originally, but now living on the outskirts of Navan. John works as an accounts clerk at a retail store in Liffey Valley. Sue nurses part-time in Blanchardstown hospital having majorly cut back her hours since their three children came along. They’ve had to cut their cloth a little in recent years but cest la vie and it’s worth it to be home with the kids. Plus the commute was a huge strain every day. They are good people. John was always active in the GAA and has got especially involved in the local club since moving to Navan. He now coaches the U-12s and is chairperson of the parent teacher association at the school. Additionally he has been more and more active in opposing the building of a road which threatens to carve through his estate.

Now John is getting increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress on the many issues he’s involved in. The deeper he gets in, the more he despairs until one night at a meeting down the community hall he says “feck it I might as well be on that bloody council myself” – the remark is throwaway but the reaction is huge ; there’s a local election next year and his friends and fellow activists see an opportunity to finally make a breakthrough. “Go for it John” ; “you’ll have all the support we can offer you and more”.

So at first reluctantly, but with increasing excitement and enthusiasm, John embarks upon a local election campaign. With his proven record on community activism he is sure he is guaranteed support. But as the campaign develops he realises half the people don’t even know what he’s been up to, in some of the dormitory estates the people didn’t even know there were some of these issues never mind that he solved them, and as far as he can see, they cared less.

With the kids and the job, time is precious of course and so is money and he can see the other candidates spending all round him. He needs posters, he needs pamphlets, he needs printing facilities, hire of meeting rooms, a dozen other things. He bought a suit for his first public meeting and he was onto his second pair of shoes not long onto the campaign trail. He is finding it increasingly difficult to fit it all in, and having already exhausted his holiday leave, he asks his employer for unpaid leave to allow him do justice to himself and his campaign in the closing weeks. Sue is still working the twice weekly night shift (the shift allowance justifies the unsocial hours) and John ends up paying a woman to mind the kids during the canvass some weeks just to keep up.

It’s been an expensive time all round and John’s family have endured hardship with him. At the start of the campaign his supporters promised to rally round and organise fund raising and they have been as good as their work with nearly 1200 euro raised in the raffle and over 2 grand taken in at the race night. Additionally a few the lads from the GAA club have come good in recent years and a few donations of 1,000 each came into the campaign account towards the end.

So far, so good. Let’s not spoil it by venturing into count night and lets leave the suspense of imagining the election outcome. But John’s campaign, expenses and income were fairly typical of any candidate, from any party or none.

Now let’s ask a few questions – with no wage coming in and (household) bills to be paid for in the closing weeks of the campaign would John be entitled to use the donations to literally put food on the table? When John splashed out (250) on a new suit to keep up appearances on the hustings was that a personal or a political expense? The petrol John went through trying to cover the constituency night after night certainly took money from the groceries bill – a personal or political expense? The childcare he invoked in those last few weeks whilst he was out fighting the cause – personal or political? If he used money for any of those things does that make him corrupt?

There is a very fine line and no easy answers. John’s experience is in no way unique. Substitute a few terms, “campaign group” for “cumann” and John could be an FF candidate. Swap in “local branch” and he’s the Labour candidate.

Perhaps in the old days the blurring was less of an issue, there weren’t tribunals trailing through every item decades later. Perhaps the donors didn’t care whether the money went on petrol in the car or a pamphlet at the printers.

But it matters today. It is only right that checks and balances exist. Genuine corruption should be stamped out, prohibited and punished as an abuse of public trust and sometimes purse. But we must come up with an alternative. In the absence of public/private funding who pays the bills? These are real questions facing any candidate aspiring to become a public representative. There is a great deal of cynicism about politicians of all hues – “they’re all the same. sure they’re all crooks”. They’re not all crooks but undoubtedly most have independent income. Supposedly we live in a democracy. But it’s increasingly becoming a situation where only the rich need apply. Especially with the stringency of ethical hyperbole forever circling and multiplying overhead. Yet the question has yet to be answered – What is the alternative? The public largely don’t want to know and established politicians don’t need to care. But the very nature of our democracy is at stake.

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.