Fine Gael (FG) called upon to explain origins of €3m election war chest

CtrlSource

A candidate in a rival party has called for Fine Gael to a publish list of its corporate donors.

Dublin SC candidate Oisín Ó hAlmhain (Green Party) has challenged Fine Gael to publish its list of corporate donors to the €3 million election war chest it allegedly has.

Link to Press Release pdf: here

Link to candidate's website: here

Personally I would be very keen to see all political parties and trade unions publishing lists of their corporate donors. I'm sure people would find it very interesting.

Here's hoping that a ban on Corporate Donations can be enacted or brought to an advanced stage Bill in the dying days of this government, or brought in by the next. It needs to happen very soon.

Please note: I am a Green Party memeber. However, I am not currently nor have ever been directly associated with the election campaign of the candidate mentioned above. I was not asked to post this thread.

Liam Byrne

It's a good development, and it should improve society if corporate donations are banned (although I'm not sure how I feel if my taxes are used to support parties that I hate).

However I'm also going to be consistent re my points raised about other parties and point out that having the Green Party object to some issues while voting confidence in other objectionable ones is double-standards.

How a Green candidate can object to this while voting confidence in FF con-men is beyond me.

Biggins

FG have already stated that the majority of their funds comes from an inner membership draw (amid other things).

I would have thought - and hoped that the Green party would be more concerned about more important things - like running the country!

FG's financial records I'm sure are quite open to be examined by a legal body should there be any serious question as to funding!

(I'm NOT a FG supporter just to make that clear.)

Its just the ruddy Greens trying to dig up mud before they are booted out of office!
The pre-election dirty tactics have started...

CtrlSource

Biggins wrote: »

FG have already stated that the majority of their funds comes from an inner membership draw (amid other things).

I don't think anyone is suggesting that what FG have done is illegal. Far from it.

However, they're being called upon to come clean about where their corporate donations come from.

@Biggins, Do you have any objection to FF, FG, Labour and others publishing their list of corporate donors?

CtrlSource

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How a Green candidate can object to this while voting confidence in FF con-men is beyond me.

The candidate is not voting confidence in FF or any other party. The candidate has (to my knowledge) never been elected. Just because people are members of political parties does not mean that they are voting confidence in others. It does not mean that they support their party's current partners in coalition government.

Biggins

CtrlSource wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting that what FG have done is illegal. Far from it.

However, they're being called upon to come clean about where their corporate donations come from.

@Biggins, Do you have any objection to FF, FG, Labour and others publishing their list of corporate donors?

Absolutely not. None whatsoever.
Clarity and honestly should always be the foundation of any active political party that is currently in the Dail.

Liam Byrne

CtrlSource wrote: »

The candidate is not voting confidence in FF or any other party. The candidate has (to my knowledge) never been elected. Just because people are members of political parties does not mean that they are voting confidence in others. It does not mean that they support their party's current partners in coalition government.

If they significantly disagreed then they wouldn't be a member. At the very least they should be as vocal about those issues rather than mud-slinging at others.

Has he similarly demanded that Ahern explain his finances and lack of a tax-clearance cert? If not, why not?

Sort out their own party's (and their chosen partner's) objectionable actions FIRST, and THEN they are welcome to point fingers or ask questions.

Manach

For private donations, is there a requirement to publish the names of donors?
I hope that the ban on corporate donations is not passed, in that it might make it more difficult for non-established party candidates to run for office?

kippy

Manach wrote: »

For private donations, is there a requirement to publish the names of donors?
I hope that the ban on corporate donations is not passed, in that it might make it more difficult for non-established party candidates to run for office?

I think private donations are even more important to be published to be honest (once over a certain figure)

jmayo

CtrlSource wrote: »

A candidate in a rival party has called for Fine Gael to a publish list of its corporate donors.

Dublin SC candidate Oisín Ó hAlmhain (Green Party) has challenged Fine Gael to publish its list of corporate donors to the €3 million election war chest it allegedly has.

Link to Press Release pdf: here

Link to candidate's website: here

Personally I would be very keen to see all political parties and trade unions publishing lists of their corporate donors. I'm sure people would find it very interesting.

Here's hoping that a ban on Corporate Donations can be enacted or brought to an advanced stage Bill in the dying days of this government, or brought in by the next. It needs to happen very soon.

Please note: I am a Green Party memeber. However, I am not currently nor have ever been directly associated with the election campaign of the candidate mentioned above. I was not asked to post this thread.

Are you practising for the election ?
I can see the greens like their bedfellows the ffers making their party affiliation information as small as possible so that they cannot read it.

This whole councillor statement reads like hyping up how necessary the legislation the greens are trying to bring in, which in affect is really about trying to find excuses as to why they are supporting the ff government after the January election deadline they set them. :rolleyes:

BTW supposedly there is no truth to the rumour that FG won it on the nags, unlike the offical version of how the man the green party voted in as taoiseach won his funds. :rolleyes:

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It's a good development, and it should improve society if corporate donations are banned (although I'm not sure how I feel if my taxes are used to support parties that I hate).

Same opinion here.
I would rather not see one cent of my money go towards the re-election or propaganda of a single ffer, pd or green.

CtrlSource wrote: »

The candidate is not voting confidence in FF or any other party. The candidate has (to my knowledge) never been elected. Just because people are members of political parties does not mean that they are voting confidence in others. It does not mean that they support their party's current partners in coalition government.

Convenient that a green resorts to the same exact argument as ffers do when questioned why they support a party that has had bertie as it's leader.
If you and this other person are green party members why did you continue to be memebrs after your party voted for bertie ahern as toaiseach?
By continuing your membership you are giving your de facto suport to the parliamentary party supporting and voting confidence in a very unethical politican for taoiseach.
Then of course you compound that by staying in a party that voted confidence in o'dea, that voted for bank guarantees/bailouts and nationalisations, and that agreed at a national convention to NAMA.

Why not do like Patricia McKenna or Deirdre de Burca and just leave ?

hallelujajordan

jmayo wrote: »

Convenient that a green resorts to the same exact argument as ffers do when questioned why they support a party that has had bertie as it's leader.
If you and this other person are green party members why did you continue to be memebrs after your party voted for bertie ahern as toaiseach?
By continuing your membership you are giving your de facto suport to the parliamentary party supporting and voting confidence in a very unethical politican for taoiseach.
Then of course you compound that by staying in a party that voted confidence in o'dea, that voted for bank guarantees/bailouts and nationalisations, and that agreed at a national convention to NAMA.

Why not do like Patricia McKenna or Deirdre de Burca and just leave ?

That's unfair imho . . If one were to leave one's party every time the party made a decision that you didn't agree with then one would quickly find oneself politically irrelevant. . . much like both the former Green candidates you mention.

Political parties exist to in order to develop and implement their policies. In our system the only way you can implement policy is to get into government and given that we haven't had an overall majority since 1977 the only way to do that is to be willing to compromise your objectives and sometimes your principles.

expectationlost

so they 1.4milllion in fivers theres no way they could worked larger amount of money into this untraceable raffle.

Shea O'Meara

CtrlSource wrote: »

A candidate in a rival party has called for Fine Gael to a publish list of its corporate donors.

Dublin SC candidate Oisín Ó hAlmhain (Green Party) has challenged Fine Gael to publish its list of corporate donors to the €3 million election war chest it allegedly has.

Link to Press Release pdf: here

Link to candidate's website: here

Personally I would be very keen to see all political parties and trade unions publishing lists of their corporate donors. I'm sure people would find it very interesting.

Here's hoping that a ban on Corporate Donations can be enacted or brought to an advanced stage Bill in the dying days of this government, or brought in by the next. It needs to happen very soon.

Please note: I am a Green Party memeber. However, I am not currently nor have ever been directly associated with the election campaign of the candidate mentioned above. I was not asked to post this thread.

We should have transparency, but both the post and thread title smack of mud slinging. If, as mentioned in a follow on post, this isn't about FG alone, why hint that FG have something to hide? Why is this chap not calling for an opening of the books across the board?
Here's a few;
Ahern asked to state he didn't kill Bambi.
Gormley quizzed on whereabouts of Wally.
Posing a question is not a crime, but we do have the 'no smoke without fire' element to consider. Is it a hope that some people will say, 'So FG are up to no good?'
I would say an element of that coupled with a paniced, 'I'm for cleaning up!'

hotmail.com

Don't forget Labour too, they get thousands off the unions.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

That's unfair imho . . If one were to leave one's party every time the party made a decision that you didn't agree with then one would quickly find oneself politically irrelevant. . . much like both the former Green candidates you mention.

That's over-simplifying it.

If one left one's party over small things, it would be as you suggest.

However if one stays in a party where you don't agree with their major decisions or if staying in requires you to condone or overlook corruption, then yes, you should leave, otherwise you will have knowingly aligned yourself with major decisions and/or corruption and will understandably be judged accordingly.

Also, as pointed out, even if you do have a different view as to what's negotiable or a candidate policy for compromise, if you vote confidence in something like someone who has unexplained finances then you cannot - absolutely cannot - point fingers at others who have their own unexplained finances.

deanh

CtrlSource wrote: »

A candidate in a rival party has called for Fine Gael to a publish list of its corporate donors.

Dublin SC candidate Oisín Ó hAlmhain (Green Party)

Where? Who?
sounds like another nobody issuing a press release to make a name for himself. All it takes is a few cranks on a forum to give it traction. F.G. draw tickets were €80, with most money going to local constituencies for an election fund. 50,000 tickets @ €80 minus prizes and expenses would easily account for a €3 million fund.

Shea O'Meara

hotmail.com wrote: »

Don't forget Labour too, they get thousands off the unions.

I wonder who the top bank officials are supporting?

I'd rather unions who claim to represent the everyday worker and can be held to account by their members.

hotmail.com

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I wonder who the top bank officials are supporting?

I'd rather unions who claim to represent the everyday worker and can be held to account by their members.

The unions and union bosses don't exactly have clean hands with regard to the economic collapse. Many union bosses were on state boards, most notably FAS.

Shea O'Meara

hotmail.com wrote: »

The unions and union bosses don't exactly have clean hands with regard to the economic collapse. Many union bosses were on state boards, most notably FAS.

Agreed. I just don't see unions as a bogeyman. Anything with people involved is open to good and bad elements such as democratic governments and unions.
Private interests are not beholding to anyone as regards their view and actions towards the public and it's purse only themselves and theirs.

expectationlost

deanh wrote: »

Where? Who?
sounds like another nobody issuing a press release to make a name for himself. All it takes is a few cranks on a forum to give it traction. F.G. draw tickets were €80, with most money going to local constituencies for an election fund. 50,000 tickets @ €80 minus prizes and expenses would easily account for a €3 million fund.

and are there any sort of records for that?

jmayo

hallelujajordan wrote: »

That's unfair imho . . If one were to leave one's party every time the party made a decision that you didn't agree with then one would quickly find oneself politically irrelevant. . . much like both the former Green candidates you mention.

Ah come on some of the decisions made by the greens were not some mickey mouse ones but enormous ones that truly went against their own supposed principles.

Firstly they went back on the statement made by their former leader and voted for someone as taoiseach they previously labelled as unethical.
Then they renaged on some of their election policies, but fair enough that often or nearly always happens.

Voting for the initial bank guarantee I could actually understand, but I could not understand how they agreed to NAMA in return for a few pyrrhic victories like the banning of one single solitary hunt.

Then they really threw out their stand on ethics by backing o'donoghue and more particularly voting confidence in o'dea.
And yes they did vote confidence in him and it was only motor mouth in Cork who subsequently threw a spanner in the works that forced gormless to get off his ar** and do something.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Political parties exist to in order to develop and implement their policies. In our system the only way you can implement policy is to get into government and given that we haven't had an overall majority since 1977 the only way to do that is to be willing to compromise your objectives and sometimes your principles.

There is a difference between a compromise and a complete and utter sellout.
And there is a difference between a compromise on policy (e.g agree to a tax or cut), a compromise on a principle (e.g should Shannon be used for stopovers by US) and a compromise on a principle such as ethics (should a government back a minister found to be lying to high court and slandering another election candidate).

Call be naieve but I believe one should never compromise on unethical corrupt behaviour.

BTW it is very noticable how many ffers are now on here speaking about having to compromise one's principles in order to succeed in politics.

CtrlSource

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If they significantly disagreed then they wouldn't be a member. At the very least they should be as vocal about those issues rather than mud-slinging at others.

Has he similarly demanded that Ahern explain his finances and lack of a tax-clearance cert? If not, why not?

Sort out their own party's (and their chosen partner's) objectionable actions FIRST, and THEN they are welcome to point fingers or ask questions.

If you are a member of a party, then it's likely you're one of those petulant, fair-weather party members who prefer be oppose everything and jump ship as soon as the heat is turned up on board. All parties have them. Such people shouldn't really join in the first place, in my opinion. I was in my late twenties before I officially joined a political party.

The Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach thing is old news. Get over it. It's somewhat off topic anyway, since we're taking about corporate donations to political parties and trade unions.

Thankfully I don't require your welcome to point fingers or ask questions of other political organisations.

jmayo wrote: »

Are you practising for the election ?
I can see the greens like their bedfellows the ffers making their party affiliation information as small as possible so that they cannot read it.

I'm not running in the election. Practising for canvassing maybe. I'll be sure to skip your door though - Though it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of the >40% who gave FF #1 in 2007. A species that's hard to flush out of the shadows these days!

Why not do like Patricia McKenna or Deirdre de Burca and just leave ?

DdeB is still a party member last time I checked. Which was recently.

deanh wrote: »

Where? Who?
sounds like another nobody issuing a press release to make a name for himself. All it takes is a few cranks on a forum to give it traction. F.G. draw tickets were €80, with most money going to local constituencies for an election fund. 50,000 tickets @ €80 minus prizes and expenses would easily account for a €3 million fund.

So, do you think that FG's €3m slush fund / war chest or whatever its called contains no (or few) corporate donations? :rolleyes:

deanh

CtrlSource wrote: »

.




So, do you think that FG's €3m slush fund / war chest or whatever its called contains no (or few) corporate donations? :rolleyes:

I don't think I actually said that. Most, money came from constituency members and €80 is well within the rules which have limits of €500? for individual contributions.

jmayo

CtrlSource wrote: »

If you are a member of a party, then it's likely you're one of those petulant, fair-weather party members who prefer be oppose everything and jump ship as soon as the heat is turned up on board. All parties have them. Such people shouldn't really join in the first place, in my opinion. I was in my late twenties before I officially joined a political party.

So now you are saying that someone that believes and actually stands by ethical behaviour and principles within a political party are fair weather party members and petulent. :rolleyes:
By god it is really beginning to show how much of ff has rubbed off on the greens. :rolleyes:

CtrlSource wrote: »

The Bertie Ahern as Taoiseach thing is old news. Get over it. It's somewhat off topic anyway, since we're taking about corporate donations to political parties and trade unions.

So unethical corrupt underhanded behaviour has time limitations.
What is it, 3 years and after is ok ?
Now you are beginning to sound like a sf supporter consigning dodgy deals to past history when it suits.

CtrlSource wrote: »

I'm not running in the election. Practising for canvassing maybe. I'll be sure to skip your door though - Though it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of the >40% who gave FF #1 in 2007. A species that's hard to flush out of the shadows these days!

Not alone do you show distain for anyone who believes politicans shoudl actually have ethics and principles that they stand by, but you haven't bothered reading many posts around here.
If you did you would have found out, I have never ever voted for ff because from my youth I saw through one charlie haughey. None of them since has altered my opinion of that party.
According to some around here, I am a rabid anti ffer.
I could also add I am a rabid anti yellow as well.

CtrlSource wrote: »

So, do you think that FG's €3m slush fund / war chest or whatever its called contains no (or few) corporate donations? :rolleyes:

And just to prove my point, the greens really have learned a lot from their ff buddies.
I suppose if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas, although most of us would see the greens, or should that be the yellows, as the fleas at this stage. :rolleyes:

You try to hint at illegality and dogy deals by the way you reference their fund. Funny you dismiss any talk of the man the greens voted in as taoiseach as old news, yet he still hasn't properly explained his SLUSH funds.

ninty9er

Biggins wrote: »

I would have thought - and hoped that the Green party would be more concerned about more important things - like running the country!

I wasn't aware there were 6,000 + members of government. Cop yourself on.

Biggins wrote: »

FG's financial records I'm sure are quite open to be examined by a legal body should there be any serious question as to funding!

I'm sure the SIPO Commission can look at them, but that doesn't take from the fact that Ryanair has a big lump of cash burning a hole in its pocket since the PDs shut up shop and it's not going to FF!

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If they significantly disagreed then they wouldn't be a member. At the very least they should be as vocal about those issues rather than mud-slinging at others.

Far be it from me to defend the GP, but it has a policy on corporate donations, it does not however have a policy on Liam Byrne's incessant obsession with Bertie Ahern. If you don't like it don't vote for them, but you cannot call something which is a long established policy mud-slinging.

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I wonder who the top bank officials are supporting?

I'd imagine that's an issue for them personally and what background they have, however like a lot of developers, I imagine those that bother to donate would do so in equal measure toe FF and FG, maybe even some to Labour to say thanks for free tuition.

jmayo wrote: »

BTW it is very noticable how many ffers are now on here speaking about having to compromise one's principles in order to succeed in politics.

On principle I find the idea of free university education morally reprehensible, however I cannot pay for it as the government will pay for it anyway. A bank isn't going to lend me €30k to make a "donation" to a university, so I put my principle aside in this instance.

I also put it aside in carrying out my job as I am mandated to lobby for the maintenance of free tuition, which I know to be unfair, unsustainable, unjust and morally wrong, but that's not a popular thing to say, though it is a growing view amongst students who want a proper education and are willing to pay to ensure they are not getting a watered down education with about 10 contact hours a week.

However "free fees" is a popular chant, as is "Gilmore for Taoiseach", however neither, in my humble and honest opinion, are the best thing for Ireland and its people!

jmayo

ninty9er wrote: »

...
On principle I find the idea of free university education morally reprehensible, however I cannot pay for it as the government will pay for it anyway. A bank isn't going to lend me €30k to make a "donation" to a university, so I put my principle aside in this instance.

I also put it aside in carrying out my job as I am mandated to lobby for the maintenance of free tuition, which I know to be unfair, unsustainable, unjust and morally wrong, but that's not a popular thing to say, though it is a growing view amongst students who want a proper education and are willing to pay to ensure they are not getting a watered down education with about 10 contact hours a week.

However "free fees" is a popular chant, as is "Gilmore for Taoiseach", however neither, in my humble and honest opinion, are the best thing for Ireland and its people!

If you look at my earlier post I tried to deal with exactly this.
I make reference to the fact I could understand the greens, ffers, FG, Labour, whoever changing their position on a principle such as should they bring in a property tax, should they make cuts in education or should they allow flights of US military through Shannon.
To me these are principles or rather policy stances.
I might not agree with their stance and say they are deserting their policies and principles, but I can't say they are highly unethical, corrupt or morally bankrupt.

What is not up for discussion in my mind is saying "shure I know bertie has very dodgy financials and the explaination he gave is laughable, I know we said he was highly unethical and I would not support him, but what the hell I will go back on my word, drop my ethical believes to now support him".

To me the principles one can not chose to drop when it suits are the ones of decency, ethics, morality, honesty and fair play.
The greens dropped these very ones.

They firstly backed ahern for taoiseach, they then backed NAMA in return for banning a stag hunt and they then backed o'dea.
That day in the Dail even the greens knew what they were doing was totally against what was once and still is the sense of decency held by many in this country as was evidenced by the demeanour of eamon ryan.

The funny thing is I can not stand SF and their own twisted sense of morality, but what o'dea did was very very wrong and not alone did he try to shaft Quinlivan, but also the journalist involved.
The greens and his fellow ffers compounded it by standing by his dispicable actions.

Now we have one telling us that people who chose to stand by the above principles are fair weather political supporters or petulent. :mad: