I think I can say – without breaching any confidence – that the first two questions he/she put (above) can be answered in the affirmative, although the way they are worded is ludicrous. And also wholly unfair to LibDem employees who acted in good faith and exercised good judgement throughout.

I have no idea why he/she assumes that Michael Brown and 5th Avenue Partners came out of ” no where” (sic). This reinforces my view that he/she is not really abreast of the details.

In terms of asking the age of the company – which company is he/she referring to exactly? 5th Avenue Partners in the UK or the EU or in another jurisdication?

It is worth remembering that Michael Brown had every right to put his name on the electoral register. If he had chosen to do so, he could have have supplied limitless money to any party of his choice personally – rather tha via a company.

I assume the assertion that Michael Brown must have been “wanting something in return” is just a further element of a deeply ill-informed rant.

I have a lot of sympathy with James Graham’s arguments on contribution limits – so does the LibDem party in general. But – in the absence of such restrictions – I find nothing extraordinary at all about very rich people giving vast sums of money to causes they care about.

For example, I do not believe that Michael Aschcroft “wants something out of” his sponsorship of the Tories. I just think he is a Tory. And has such huge amounts of cash that he can throw millions of quid into a cause he cares about.

If I was worth £100m+, I would definitely write a cheque to the LibDems for £1m a year. And would expect absolutely nothing in return. Not a peerage. Not a veto on policy. Nothing.

I believe the LibDems handled the Brown donation with great propriety. I am utterly certain that all LibDem staff I ever dealt with on this matter went beyond the call of duty in doing everything that could reasonably be expected – by even the most vociferous critic – to ensure that all moral and legal standards were complied with.

What makes me angry is that Rupert Murdoch’s media empire (Murdoch not being a citizen of the UK, and not – as far as I’m aware – even a taxpayer here) can try and cook up some story about the behaviour of the LibDems over this donation.

A striking example of this is The Times effectively surrendering its repuation as a newspaper of record. No other serious media outlet felt the Brown donation worthy of major coverage. The Times persisted in putting the non-story on their front page. The rest of the media world frowned and yawned – and yawned again.

What is particularly irksome is that it seems to be those who are so opposed to the state-funding of parties who are so exercised about the LibDems taking £2m from 5th Avenue.

So, we can’t have a level playing field AND we daren’t accept money from maverick millionaires?

A less generous man than me might throw around all sorts of abuse. But, in my view, dubbing Rupert Murdoch as a “tax-dodging, manipulative billionaire” might be unfair.

But if anyone thinks that the LibDems accepting – and spending – the donation from 5th Avenue is the height of political corruption, then they don’t just have a warped sense of priorities, they’re just plain wrong.

I am unsurprised to see that one of the journalists involved is now working for a different newspaper (The Observer) – because this just isn’t a Watergate. Even The Times, in their wisdom, may have realised that this is not investigative jouranlism of any merit.

I suespect that the journalists involved like to think of themselves as latter day Woodwards and Bernsteins. But they’re just not. Really, truly, 100%, completely, totally and utterly not.

They will continue to try and make a “story” stand up and will fail.

The LibDems have no need for a guilty conscience here whatsoever.

And I thought we were screwed up here. Glad to see you have political liars too.

In my view, the Electoral Commission has acted pretty badly. It seems almost impossible for them to ever “close the file” on a case. I was never able to get out of them an explanation of what evidence, criteria or period of time lapsed would be necessary for them to declare “case closed”. This has the impact of potentially impairing the day-to-day actions of a political party, if they are forever open to the possibility – however remote – that a substantial sum will have to be repaid. In this case, of course, the party’s auditors seem very confident. But my basic point about the Commission’s inability to make a final decision representing a threat to a functioning democracy still stands.

On James Graham’s point, I have some sympathy…but we would, of course, risk placing ourselves at an even greater disadvantage in competing with Labour and the Tories. By way of analogy, if Arsene Wenger firmly believes that there should only be 8 outfield players in a football team – or that teams should be limited to only one substitution per game – it doesn’t follow that Arsenal should impose such restraints and limitations on themselves unless their opponents are willing to do likewise.

I agree – but in proving that point the issue of good faith conduct is likely to be highly relevant (which you were claiming it wasn’t).

“having accepted a donation from a company that was not engaged in a business in contravention of PPERA”

Also relevant but I think he’d have to go further than that to win his case as PPERA checks wouldn’t establish the legitimate origins of the money. Mr Mann might also legitimately be asked why if he couldn’t identify Browns true intentions (he was after all putting at risk a substantial amount of money) the Lib Dems would have been able to in what is a very short timeframe.

Well you can’t have it both ways. After spending the Brown donation, either the Lib Dems have the money to repay Brown/Mann or they don’t. In the latter case the party becomes insolvent.

No, but it might make a difference to whether he can get it back or not. And I wouldn’t get your hopes up about the party becoming insolvent if any money does have to be paid.

This would probably be an action founded on other grounds than the PPERA legislation, not least because that law wouldn’t provide Mr Mann with a remedy. There is case law holding it to be inequitable to trace to innocent third parties.

I have no idea whether this is true but LOrd McAlpine, former Conservative Party Treasurer claims that the donations from Polly Peck were repaid to the liquidator:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/11/30/do3004.xml

Also the reason Mr Mann can claim the £600k even though it has been spent is that the validity of the claim doesn’t depend on whether or not the money has been spent, although if there is nothing left in the till, the party may become insolvent.

That quango being the Electoral Commission, who’s job it is to decide whether proper enquiries have been made?

You think that the Courts will have a different view in this instance?

I suspect Mann’s main problem will be proving that it was his money that went to the LDs (Taylor v Plumer).

But the defence of change of position is relevant – as the courts weigh up which would be the greater injustice, to return or not to return. Mann’s decision to invest – compared with the LDs’ acceptance of a donation within strict time limits that the electoral commission said, on the same evidence as open to the LDs presumably, was permissible – could be relevant.

Stephen, your economy with the truth amounts to parsimony.

Mark – I don’t really understand this. But, anyway, the question of whether the money was Michael Brown’s to give away is a very different one from whether the Lib Dems were justified in accepting the donation in the first place.

I don’t know the details of the case but if Mr Mann is asking for a remedy in equity (and your suggestion seems to be that this is at least partly a tracing action) then the good faith actions of an innocent third party would be highly relevant.

I can’t see that the PPERA rules will be particularly relevant to this case as confirming that someone is on the electoral register wouldn’t in any way establish their legitimate ownership of a donation.

Regarding Robert Mann, I doubt very much that he will be claim on the basis of the Lib Dems not acting in good faith. Rather I am sure that he will claim that the party is in receipt of his stolen property and that he is entitled to its return. It doesn’t help Mr Mann to claim that the donation was impermissible, since that could lead to the money being forfeit, but the party risks losing the money to the Treasury (which would be the full £2.4m) *and* losing £600k in the courts so they have to pay Mr Mann anyway. I suspect there may be an out of court settlement and a cheque from the Quakers in York.

However, that was regarding the exact implementation of the PPERA. I suspect that Robert Mann has another trick up his sleeve. Nonetheless, it is a bit rich to expect the Lib Dems to pay up when it was just as encumbant on Mann himself to look into Brown before handing over £600,000. Don’t they have caveat emptor in the States?

All of this is irrelevant though. We have paid a heavy price for accepting this donation and now need to rectify the situation. The best way of doing this is to practice what we preach about donations caps.

“It is not clear to the Commission that 5th Avenue Partners Ltd was carrying on business in the UK at the time the donations were made. If not, then the donations were impermissible. Under Section 58 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Commission has the power to apply to a court for an order that the party must forfeit to the Consolidated Fund an amount equal to the value of any impermissible donation. We are considering the available evidence and expect to reach a decision on whether to apply for such an order in the next few weeks.”

Given that a High Court judge ruled that 5th Avenue’s activities were all fraudulent, you are misleading your readers. If Mr Mann can demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction that there was no business in the company, then either the Lib Dems will be required to return the donation or it will be forfeit. “Good faith” is irrelevant.