In an age when regulators abound in the context of strict parameters, it is anachronistic that our political parties are subject to practically no regulation, other than for the ridiculous legal limit on how much candidates can spend in the election campaign period. The government initiative to give parties better context is, as such, way overdue.

The delay rests with the parties themselves. They have been considering party financing for decades and getting nowhere fast. Now the government has come up with a definite plan of action, based on a report that has been put up for consultation with a commitment to act on it before the House of Representatives rises for the summer recess.

That should give more than ample time to the public to come forward with suggestions, and for the political parties themselves to say what they think of the proposals.

One positive factor to start off with is that the proposals do not include provisions for the State to finance the political parties. Some countries do it. Many do not. My view is that the financing aspect of politics should be left to the parties themselves. That may sound unfair to new and small political parties, and advantageous to the established entities.

On the other hand, is it fair for taxpayers to be burdened with carrying the cost of those who enter the political game? The answer is not clear cut, for democracy requires strong participation in the contest for the right to represent the people and to run the Administration according to the requirements of the Constitution and the law of the land.

It still remains unfair to make taxpayers pay up for the privilege. Aspiring politicians should recognise from the start that they enter politics to serve, not to be themselves serviced by the people.

The proposals are wider in scope than party financing. They put forward a framework whereby political parties can be organised and formally recognised.

Every entity which seeks public support has a formal structure. It is right that the basics of such a structure are demanded by law, with acute care being shown not to stifle initiative through state control.

As things stand now, parties can be loose formations. That the parties that exist are not so is to their merit. But proper formation should not be a matter of choice.

Of the proposals regarding financing what the authors are on about is essentially control of donations received by political parties. Such control is justified by the unstated but clear principle that candidates and parties should not be bought by the highest bidder. This is not some abstract political exercise.

It is an established fact that the business sector includes individuals and companies who are prepared to invest in some political party of their choice for eventual gain

It is an established fact that the business sector, in the main, includes individuals and companies who are prepared to invest in some political party of their choice for eventual gain. It is also an established fact though they will not admit it that the main political parties seek contributions from the business sector.

There were times when this took the form of contributions of specific amounts according to perceived ability to pay being demanded in an organised manner and without as much as a faint blush.

There were also times when business people financed political individuals to be able to fight for their beliefs full time.

This is hearsay, one might say. Where is the evidence? The political class and living members of it know very well that it is not hearsay but it seems so because no donor will be prepared to step forward to admit that he has tried to grease the wheels of potential office to buy eventual influence.

The proposals recognise the reality of donations and seek to regulate their size. They start by striking at anonymity, removing one’s full right of what to do with his money.

For that purpose, donations in excess of €500 have to be declared by the beneficiary. The proposals scale up regulation according to contribution size, with a cap at €50,000.

There will be disagreement about the values at each step of the way. What matters is that eventually there will be a structure in place that everybody has to adhere to.

It would be fanciful to presume that such adherence will be total. Substantial anonymous contributions and backhanders will still be made. But at least there will be a legal deterrent in place. At the moment the only deterrent is moral, and has proved to be no impediment to shady donors going about their business according the age-old practice of scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, except that the roles are inverted – I’ll scratch your back on the clear understanding that when the time comes you’ll scratch mine.

Regulations will target all donations and not just business donations. That is as it should be. It is not only some business people who seek to buy influence. But most of the time the grey donations that one is talking about come from within the business sector.

In that regard, the proposals are insufficient, in that they only target political parties. To strengthen the deterrent, regulatory measures will have to be complemented by other legal measures that determine how business donations should be shown in the books of commercial entities. Granted, as a general rule it isn’t companies that make donations, but an individual or individuals within them.

But the money comes from company funding, with the outlays hidden away through the various tricks that still make business returns in some cases a bit of a joke.

The proposals are a start. They require a great deal of fleshing out before they become a reasonably effective deterrent.