Some attempt to control the financial outlay on politics has long been in the making. Ever since I can remember, the need to curb the influence of money on politics has been a political issue at party level, particularly when the proposing party feels it is outdone in financial resources collected from donors.

The reference to donors has to be explained. All parties have small donors. They donate their time through voluntary work at headquarters or club level. Their numbers swell as an election approaches. But there are real volunteers who give their time throughout the year.

Then there are small cash donors who come forward when the parties organise fund raising activities, which they tend to do several times a year.

Such donors are the real small people the parties refer to. They do not give much but they give generously relative to their means and there are many of them.

Then there are other donors, the big fish. They too are split into two. There are big fish that support one party or the other. They dig into their pockets out of belief. The other type of donors consists of the political investors. They donate to a party in the hope that, when it is in office, it will pay them back.

Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours is a an active philosophy in politics, except that there it is I’ll scratch your back and expect you to scratch mine when the time comes.

Parties could always do with donations, supplemented with meagre membership fees and earnings from commercial activities, unless these become loss makers as they all too often do. Nowadays, the cost of building and running a party machine has shot up, as party-making and electioneering have modernised.

Costs have risen astronomically and the necessary funds must come from somewhere. Fund-raising activities have increased correspondingly but so have efforts to raise money from big commercial fish. There is little one can do to control this obnoxious trend. One way of influencing it is to place politicians and party spending under the spotlight.

That is what a Bill published on Friday aims to do. It seeks to control donations to individuals and to parties. Will it succeed in curbing tainting politics with excessive contributions, opening the big ones’ confidentiality, as is its scope? Everyone hopes it shall. I am cynical about the outcome, whatever limits are finally set around the ones that have been suggested already.

In politics, it is I’ll scratch your back and expect you to scratch mine when the time comes

The suggested limits seem reasonable. Yet, they only become realistic if the political class limits its obsession with power.

Politics is meant to attract people to serve. They may wish to serve their brethren or their class if they are ideologically motivated. To serve others should be the common motto of politicians.

Unfortunately, all too often politicians want to serve themselves first and foremost, either for pride, by fulfilling personal ambitions, or as an investment, to milk the situation when the opportunity offers itself.

The Electoral Commission, tasked with controlling political donations and expenditure, has its work cut out, even if, as the piloting minister promised, it shall be given professional resources to monitor and audit the situation.

It will have to come down very heavily on the political class, both parties and individuals, if it is really to help bring about a sea change in political culture.

It may not be enough to set powers for a loss of one’s seat if an MP is found to have spent more than s/he declares to the commission. The powers have to be exercised. Examples have to be set.

The next few years will determine whether the monetary exercise is for real or a mere show of intent, a hopeful deterrent at best.

A revealing factor feeding my cynicism further is the limit of expenditure set for those who contest the local council elections. Except for the mayor, I believe they do not get an honorarium while modest expenses are covered.

Why is it, then, that under the rules being proposed they should be able to spend up to €5,000 in their election campaigns?

Altruism, if that is really what it is, comes at a high price.

Despite my reservations, I do not see the proposed legislation as a waste of time. The intentions are good. It remains to be seen how successful they will prove to be in the real political world.