Isn’t the difference this-

the Lib Dems disclosed Brown’s donation to make it a matter of public record;

in the Tory Party, the donation would have been made anonymous by putting it through the Midlands Industrial Council and no-one would have ever known about it.

The electoral commission agreed it was legal based on the information they received. That information has now been proved to be wrong.

I developed advice for council groups on PPERA and the view was they came under this category though IIRC correctly this had limited practical effect due to the thresholds involved.

No, it has nothing at all to do with people’s employers.

The point is that people shouldn’t be able to make large anonymous donations to political parties.

As for Michael Brown, the Electoral Commission has said there has been no wrong-doing by the party. English law protects those who innocently receive money. If that was changed many 1000s of small businesses would face difficulty.

I don’t think the beeb made their case very well, but the interviews threw up some new leads.

There was an argument that “cash for questions” wasn’t strictly against the law.

You don’t defend that do you?

If no-one was trying to keep any donations secret, the MIC would publish all its past donors and make a public promise to pubish all future ones. It has refused to do either.

What reason is there for this way of doing things except to try to keep donations – that are in effect donations to the Tory party – secret? Sounds rather like the way the Tories used loans – again to try to keep its source of funding secret.

http://www.liberalreview.com/content/2006/11/the-mic-more-to-them-than-meets-the-eye

If it is the latter than this is clearly a donation in kind and should be reported as such

If it is the latter the question also arises as to whether the Conservative Party knows about this activity. If it does, and it is a donation in kind, then they are probably in breach of their obligations under PPERA.

The key difference with the Brown case is that all the evidence suggests that the Lib Dems acted in good faith at all times.

The Conservatives would not be able to claim that they have acted in good faith if it shown that they are, or have been, involved in the setting up of a structure which has been established in such a way as to avoid the proper reporting of largescale donations in kind.

But donor gives money to MIC, MIC spends it on campaigning – donor’s name is kept secret

Can you spot the difference between the two Iain … ? You know, it’s a bit like how Labour and Tories took loans from people rather than donations so their names could be kept secret. Odd coincidence that.