So the Leader of the Conservative party met with people who have made substantial donations. Are we really surprised? If we are then we really shouldn't be.
Donations give you access. It's the same with all the parties and at all levels. From MPs holding coffee mornings to raise election funds to unions buying an opportunity to elect the party leader. The question isn't so much access but influence.
It is naïve to believe that policy is made or changed based on a couple of dinner party conversations, if indeed there were such conversations. There are many influences on policy; public opinion polls, academic research, policy forums, professional lobbying and general discussions. Some great ideas may well come from corridor conversations but that doesn't make them corrupt.
We must however make the distinction between government policy and party policy. It would be very wrong if party donors influenced government policy. But that they may have some influence over party policy isn't such a torrid idea. There is perhaps a difficulty when the party is in government. However, the influences on policy do become even more complicated when in a coalition.
Others have written about why donors part with substantial funds to support particular parties. I believe that there is always an element of ideological compatibility in selecting which party to donate to; be that generally or on a single issue. But the desire to brag about who you've been hanging out with must surely feature somewhere prominent.
Parties clearly need money. So what do we do now?
There is clearly a need to draw a firm line about where the party ends and government begins. Perhaps this means not using government buildings (even if it is the Prime Minister's home). Perhaps this means capping donation amounts. But taxpayer funded parties isn't the way forward for three important reasons.
With the budget already stretched, taxpayer funding for political parties will infuriate many people when the money should properly be invested in important areas such as education, health, etc.
People shouldn't be forced to have their money spent on a party they don't believe in. With voluntary donations, funding can be seen as a measure of whether a party has sufficient support to survive.
The last three elections have produced the lowest voter turnout since 1945, although the trend is in a fragile upturn. Moving to a taxpayer funded party model will do little to assist in engaging people in politics. As people become more distant from engaging with parties they are likely to disengage further from politics in general and that is not healthy for the country.
Evidence from other countries is inconclusive as to whether this model of funding works to reduce the perception of sleaze and corruption. In some countries, it has only aided in providing further funding for corrupt officials.
And what of this inquiry?
Is Cameron perhaps missing a trick here. Assuming he wanted to make this issue go away a bit faster I would suggest that he appoints an eminent Labour peer to oversee the internal party enquiry. "Have you lost your mind?", I here you cry.
Well, one of the best ways to deal with hostile people is to bring them into the fold by giving them a responsible job. The appointee will be all the more careful to make sure they are not seen to be attacking the Conservative Party on party political grounds. A brave move, but if well managed one which could bring about a fantastic result.