Lending credibility?
There's nothing like headlines about sleaze to inspire an appetite for political reform.
Today the government has suddenly discovered the appetite to amend electoral law to outlaw secret loans - despite the fact it was the prime minister himself who appears to have personally sanctioned such loans a year or so ago.
Also today, the Tory leader will proclaim his opposition to secret loans - despite the fact that his party's been using them for many years. David Cameron will also argue for a new legal framework which will dramatically change the way politics has been financed in this country. The key to it is a limit on donations - the debate inside the party has been on whether to set that at £30,000 or £50,000 - with match funding and tax relief being deployed to encourage smaller gifts.
This is the mix which the Electoral Commission examined in an enquiry into party funding in 2004 but which they didn't push because the necessary political consensus didn't exist (translation - no sleaze headlines at that time to focus party leader minds). Smaller parties - not just the Liberal Democrats but the nationalist parties too - have argued for reform on these lines - their problem, of course, has more often than not been that they've not had enough money to be accused of sleaze.
Lo! Thus, a consensus emerges to save us from sleaze. Well, hold on a second. There are real problems with reform on these lines which - to abandon the cynicism for a moment - is why both major parties opposed it in the past.
Problem 1: Limits on donations can be got round
Rich people simply give £50k to friends and relatives to give to their favoured party on their behalf. New organisations will be set up - "The Friends of David Cameron", for example or "Committee of Labour backers" which could receive millions and then spend them on political advertising to "complement" that of the parties. Clearly, the law can be drawn up to try to prevent and police this but any study of the growth of so-called "soft money" in the United States shows the way that laws can be circumvented.
Problem 2: Limits on donations may destroy the traditional structure of the Labour Party
Large union donations would be banned on this model - and if they weren't other parties could complain that there was no level playing field. Peter Hain is already publicly expressing the concern felt by many union leaders. Some Tories are already rubbing their hands with glee.
Problem 3: You'll pay for it
The Electoral Commission estimated a £46 million shortfall if fundraising limits were introduced although that did not allow for the fact that much more could be raised through small donations if that was the only way for parties to get the money they needed.
The moral of the story? Laws may help bring transparency and, therefore, act as an antidote to sleaze but, in the end, it is the actions of political leaders which matter most.
I'm 
