SF's American funding (and support): going, going, gone?

MT

According to The Times Labour is going to pull the plug on overseas fundraising by parties based in NI. This will ensure the north falls into line with the rest of Ireland and the UK.

This could be the most damaging outcome for Sinn Féin from the recent scandals. For a good number of years now there has been an uneven playing field in Irish elections, north and south. The flow of donations from supporters from America has allowed the party to become the richest on the island. This has ensured that SF has had little difficulty when funding election campaigns, setting up offices, plastering towns with candidate posters and so on. However, what I most object to is not that SF is Ireland’s richest party – though I very much wish it wasn’t – but that it achieved this status unfairly as the only party in the Republic permitted to fundraise abroad.

Labour, FF, FG, the Greens and PDs can only collect donations in the Irish Republic; however, there’s no such restriction for Sinn Féin. Why? Because of the peculiar situation where parties in NI, unlike the rest of the UK, can gather financial contributions anywhere across the globe. No doubt supporters will protest that this money is only used up north. But, putting polite fictions aside, the truth is SF electoral success up there has a direct impact on their allure at the ballot box in the rest of Ireland. Indeed, given the party’s willingness to use candidates elected there – see McGuiness et al in the Meath by election – to endorse their peers down south, surely money spent in the north benefits the party everywhere. For that matter, who’s to say a little creative accounting doesn’t see cash from abroad – officially destined for NI – find its way into election coffers in the Republic. But of course, no one associated with Sinn Féin would ever indulge in a criminal conspiracy!!

So, if the British at last fall into line with the wise approach of the Irish government and legislate to outlaw the flow of overseas donations to parties standing in NI, Sinn Féin will be severely penalised. This coupled with the reintroduction of an American ban, not to mention the growing backlash amongst formerly enthusiastic donors in Irish-America and the party could really be left high and dry financially. After all, the ability to fund raise in the US was apparently a primary motivating factor in bringing about the 1994 IRA cease-fire.

---

As an aside, I’ve always found the silence of the republican movement’s Marxist supporters concerning donations from American capitalists somewhat peculiar. Mind you, could the Marxist tag have been simply yet another hypocritical ruse much like the calls for ‘truth and justice’ employed by the party as an electoral strategy.

---

Anyway here’s the article:




US calls halt to Sinn Fein fundraising in IRA backlash

By Michael Evans, Defence Editor and Helen Rumbelow
March 14, 2005


THE US Government has banned Sinn Fein from fundraising following White House anger over the IRA’s continuing involvement in crime.

Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein leader, and other members of the party have been ordered not to take part in any fundraising during their traditional St Patrick’s Day visit to America this week.


In a further blow to Sinn Fein, The Times has learnt that the British Government has set a deadline of the end of this month for a plan to stop the party from benefiting from millions of pounds of foreign donations.

Underlining the diplomatic shift against Sinn Fein and the IRA, The Times has learnt that the threat level for Irish republican terrorism in the UK has been raised for the first time since the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998.

This response follows the near-terminal blow to the peace process caused by the accusation from the head of the Northern Ireland Police Service that the IRA was responsible for a £26 million bank raid and the murder of Robert McCartney in a Belfast bar. The threat level is now “substantial”, one below “severe general” which is the current status for international terrorist threats to the UK.

The ban on fundraising was delivered privately to Mr Adams through US State Department channels. Diplomatic sources said it was made clear that such activities, normally a crucial part of Sinn Fein’s links with Irish Americans, would be unacceptable.

It is the latest in a series of hostilities from President Bush, who has frozen Mr Adams out of all official engagements during his visit to Washington and kept the doors of the White House firmly closed in his face.

US Senator Edward Kennedy has also called off talks with Mr Adams, it emerged last night as Peter King, Sinn Fein’s leading backer in the US Congress, called for the IRA to disband, saying their recent actions had fuelled growing hostility within Irish-American circles.

Paul Murphy, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, last month extended the special exemption that allows Sinn Fein and other parties in the province to raise money in the US for another two years.

But he said that this would be the last time that he wanted to give special favours to Northern Ireland parties, demanding the results of a formal consultation with all parties concerned by the end of March, The Times has learnt.

In 2000 the British Government made it illegal for parties to raise funds outside the UK. However, Northern Ireland was exempted because both the SDLP and Sinn Fein depended on fundraising in the Republic of Ireland. They were also allowed to keep donations anonymous, because of the threat of intimidation to donors.

This allowed Sinn Fein to continue to raise funds in America, which security sources said had netted them between £15 million and £20 million since the ban on such activities had been lifted by President Clinton in March 1995.

Mr Murphy said last May that he had lost patience with the loophole and wanted it done away with by the beginning of this year.

“The Government recognise that the current funding arrangements lack transparency and that they are open to abuse,” said Mr Murphy.

But after an intense summer of negotiations on the future of the Northern Ireland peace process, he backed down.

---

Of course, if this goes ahead Sinn Féin will most likely ignore the fact that the legislation will simply standardise fundraising rules for NI with those in place throughout the rest of Ireland and Britain. Instead, they’ll no doubt decry the move as yet more British oppression or even as some sort of human rights violation. I mean, how are funding cuts going to help Republican’s in their struggle against human rights abuses… what? …you’re hearing a strange noise? Oh, that’ll be Jean McConville and Robert McCartney spinning in their graves.

AmenToThat

MT wrote:

Of course, if this goes ahead Sinn Féin will most likely ignore the fact that the legislation will simply standardise fundraising rules for NI with those in place throughout the rest of Ireland and Britain. Instead, they’ll no doubt decry the move as yet more British oppression or even as some sort of human rights violation. I mean, how are funding cuts going to help Republican’s in their struggle against human rights abuses… what? …you’re hearing a strange noise? Oh, that’ll be Jean McConville and Robert McCartney spinning in their graves.[/COLOR]

Can I have a loan of your crystal ball when your finished with it as I want to pick out some winners in Cheltenham this week................

Your talking about possible future moves by a Labour government (assuming they get voted back into power).
Yet you already know how this will effect SF and then their response and the knock on effect this will have on people dead in their graves.

This place gets weirder and weirder

MT

AmenToThat wrote:

Can I have a loan of your crystal ball when your finished with it as I want to pick out some winners in Cheltenham this week................

Maybe you can also find out when Sinn Féin will finally give the McCartney's the help they need in their search for justice. But mind you, I think it'll be Gerry and the boys who'll be most in need of a few winners at Cheltenham to balance the books a few years from now.

AmenToThat wrote:

Your talking about possible future moves by a Labour government (assuming they get voted back into power).

I'd say such moves are more than likely. And if Labour do lose the general election, do you really think the Tories will be more lenient?

AmenToThat wrote:

Yet you already know how this will effect SF and then their response and the knock on effect this will have on people dead in their graves.

Of course, I know how this will affect SF. Don't you? It's not rocket science to realise that loss of their American funding base would be disastrous for the party.

And as for 'people dead in their graves' when have Republican's been able to resist informing the rest of us what our dead ancestors would think of partition.

AmenToThat wrote:

This place gets weirder and weirder

Yeah, it's amazing. Even after the IRA's recent robbery, murder and intimidation there are still posters prepared to support Sinn Féin. Remarkable.

AmenToThat

Again a thread on party funding has been turned into the now standard 'www.boards.ie SF rant'

Iv responded to rants of this nature before and see it as a pointless exercise to continually tear down the same mindless arguments time after time so I will respectfully bow out of this discussion and leave the floor to you.

Sleepy

A few thoughts on this:

If donations are currently anonymous, how are Sinn Fein's claims that their funding is legit substantiated? This is not an attack, just a genuine question.

If "Sinn Fein" can't fundraise in the States, can the "IRA" continue to do so?

Should people ever cop on and the IRA be disbanded, what happens to it's financial assets? Are they to be distributed amongst the volunteers (making them mercenaries), will the money be subsumed into Sinn Fein (surely illegal), will reparitions be made to the innocent victims of their actions? or something else entirely?

AmenToThat

AmenToThat wrote:

Your talking about possible future moves by a Labour government (assuming they get voted back into power).

LoL thats a good one.
The tories are renowned for their love of Sinn Féin.... they'll be kinder will they?

Hobbes

You know.. I read these threads but they are painful to read these days because someone brings a subject up and it automatically gets turned into a bash SF thread.

If you bring up an issue to address on SF, fine and dandy but don't go off topic. For example.. " Maybe you can also find out when Sinn Féin will finally give the McCartney's the help they need in their search for justice.". We already have a thread on this sort of crap,keep it to that.

Now that said. You mentioned that SF is the richest party in Ireland? News to me, can you link us to how you came to that conclusion. Actual facts and figures would be great.

Nuttzz

News to you? The dogs in the street know they are!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1527351,00.html
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=265192005
http://www.sluggerotoole.com/archives/2005/02/sinn_fain_in_th.php
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d304f24e-892d-11d9-b7ed-00000e2511c8.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2005/01/16/story1581.asp
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=76367250294&p=76367z5x856&n=76367250926

Hobbes

Cheers for the links Nuttzz, as I said I didn't know.

However those links aren't the best. Got anything that compares them against the current parties? Also some of those links don't claim they are largest, just mention largest in certain parts of how they get their funds. Also I tend to refrain from posting blogs as reliable sources of information (unless you can find something to back it up).

So anyone got a breakdown on which party spends what?

Nuttzz

There is very little compartitive analysis done, the SIPOC does some but it mostly relates to public money, SF are quite rich in asset terms, the properties in Parnell Square are worth a lot (see above links).

Personally I think those links are good sources, they are all different papers which say pretty much the same thing. I agree that blogs arent the best sources however some people have treated them as gospel regarding other issues (e.g. Iraq) but I threw it in anyway as a opinion piece and it should be treated as such.

The SIPOC annial report gives some comparison of spending but not income.
See link (warning, its big)
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/28d6/ar03sipe.pdf

Hobbes

Thanks. good reply. +1 rep.

Pal

MT wrote:

Yeah, it's amazing. Even after the IRA's recent robbery, murder and intimidation there are still posters prepared to support Sinn Féin. Remarkable.

I am perplexed why anybody at all supports them !

uberwolf

Pal wrote:

I am perplexed why anybody at all supports them !

be that as it may, can everyone please keep on topic.

Stabshauptmann

The topic is fundraising yes? so why people donate money - support SF is relevant no?

Sleepy
If you take what is written in "A secret history of the IRA" as fact then support in monetary terms from the US goes almost exclusively to SF. Apparently SF is quite transparent with US authorities as to where money comes from and goes.

Also apparently NORAID donators feel betrayed / rejected / snubbed by the switch to SF instead of IRA and the fact that big business are SF's new friends.

(btw I dont take everything written that book as fact and if anyone else would like to reccomend a good book about the troubles Id appreciate it. Im tempted to get "UDA: inside the heart of loyalist terror". Has anyone read it / heard good reviews?)

Just a quick question to pal all those who cant understand why ppl vote / support SF even though the links between them and the IRA are so clear:
The main political parties north and south have at stages in their pasts been linked to private armies, yet enjoy much popular support why should SF be any different?
It would appear that being linked to an army doesnt particularly bother the irish electorate. So inorder to bash SF might I reccomend attacking their economic policy - its inconsistant and unfeasible / possibly danerous. People in Ireland DO seem to care alot about money.

Most ppl seem to believe that violence can serve a purpose, if they didn’t then I doubt history would dotted with wars the way it is. To say in this day and age violence is unacceptable is hypocritical and ignorant; just as to say Islamic fundamentalists are monsters since Christian have gone through the same phases in their history.
It is my firm belief that people can not learn from the mistakes of others, only from their own experience. It is hypocritical for us as a society to negatively judge another society given that we have made the same choices in our past. Thus the old adage "History is doomed to repeat itself"

oscarBravo

Necromancer wrote:

It is my firm belief that people can not learn from the mistakes of others, only from their own experience.

In my experience, it's not so much a question of "can not" as "will not". Lots of people learn from the mistakes of others.

Necromancer wrote:

It is hypocritical for us as a society to negatively judge another society given that we have made the same choices in our past. Thus the old adage "History is doomed to repeat itself"

You're misquoting George Santayana: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Lemming

Necromancer wrote:

Just a quick question to pal all those who cant understand why ppl vote / support SF even though the links between them and the IRA are so clear:
The main political parties north and south have at stages in their pasts been linked to private armies, yet enjoy much popular support why should SF be any different?

1. SF/IRA are *meant* be on cease-fire, but are still engaging in activities that are less than sociable
2. No Irish party has had an (at the least) active armed wing since we gained independance if I recall.

It would appear that being linked to an army doesnt particularly bother the irish electorate.

I think it does. Being attached to a bunch of psychos and sadists who are quite partial to carrying out all manner of crimes and then saying "it's ok because we did it, therefore it doesn't count" would bother most people I should imagine. Most people have the knives out because SF/IRA have armed men running around unchecked, not because SF/IRA are called SF/IRA.

So inorder to bash SF might I reccomend attacking their economic policy - its inconsistant and unfeasible / possibly danerous. People in Ireland DO seem to care alot about money.

I've attacked that before, along with other policies. And to be honest, it's something that should be raised far more often

Back on topic: I believe that SF/IRA are in for a very rough ride in the US from here on in and I think that they will loose a lot of their 'support' when it's made clear what they have been, and are, up to. Further, if Bush decides to blacklist them (not an impossibility) then that will be it. Goodbye America for the rest of the foreseeable future.

Hydroquinone

I think this is a circular argument

As far as I can see, SF bashers believe that SF are a shower of criminals who disregard the law. If that is the case, how can SF bashers think that this same shower of criminals will obey this particular law?

The pro SF contingent can use this as a concrete sign of British oppression adn anti-nationalist behaviour and as such, thier spin doctors can rattle it out to the credulous American donors.

Neither side really believes that a law - a British law at that - will prevent SF from fundraising in America, really, do they?

jman0

Lemming wrote:

Back on topic: I believe that SF/IRA are in for a very rough ride in the US from here on in and I think that they will loose a lot of their 'support' when it's made clear what they have been, and are, up to. Further, if Bush decides to blacklist them (not an impossibility) then that will be it. Goodbye America for the rest of the foreseeable future.

You know it's comical how dazzled by the current media hype some ppl appear to be. Like i posted yesterday, this current spate of SF bashing is a storm in a tea cup compared to the likes of what they endured in the 1980's. I will remind you that this was the pinnacle of the Cold War and the IRA had a gunboat siezed here that orignated from Libya, which USA had declared a major enemy. One that they took unilateral military action against.
During this period Thatcher was railing against SF and the IRA, labelled them criminals and Marxist/Communists (which at the time was about the blackest word in the engish language, both sides of the atlantic), and banned them from the airwaves. SF wasn't allowed to set foot in USA much less fundraise. Whether or not you feel Thatcher was or wasn't loved in Britain, Regan was hugely popular in USA at the time.
Forget about McCartney, compared to events going on the 80's the media is making a mountain of a mole hill, as they say.
Remember Thatcher promising that she'd defeat Republicans by "starving them of the oxygen of publicity"?
Guess what, didn't work.
The media hype around McCartney is another example of media sensationalism, they'll latch onto the very next bandwagon that looks like it'd sell papers/attract viewers and run IT into the ground too.
And SF will still be here, knocking on doors and winning votes.

Seth Brundle

Hydroquinone wrote:

Neither side really believes that a law - a British law at that - will prevent SF from fundraising in America, really, do they?

in other words, SF will break the law - something they claim they don't do!

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

You know it's comical how dazzled by the current media hype some ppl appear to be. Like i posted yesterday, this current spate of SF bashing is a storm in a tea cup compared to the likes of what they endured in the 1980's.

jman0 .... SF/IRA were. not. on. ceasefire. during. the. 1980s.

That is the fundamental difference between then and now, and a lot of people are really questioning the continued activity and existence of this organisation. Particularly in light of recent activities and their stance on those activities.

During this period Thatcher was railing against SF and the IRA, labelled them criminals and Marxist/Communists (which at the time was about the blackest word in the engish language, both sides of the atlantic), and banned them from the airwaves. SF wasn't allowed to set foot in USA much less fundraise. Whether or not you feel Thatcher was or wasn't loved in Britain, Regan was hugely popular in USA at the time.

Do you think that that couldn't happen again? And given that Bush is a) a bit black and white in his thinking, and b) evidently running out of patience with SF/IRA I wouldn't rule out a return to the pariah existance with added interest.

Lemming

Hydroquinone wrote:

Neither side really believes that a law - a British law at that - will prevent SF from fundraising in America, really, do they?

No. But the Americans might prevent them. As I've said to a previous poster this is not the 1980s

And secondly, the US has become funny with regards terrorism post 9/11 and a lot less supportive towards it. The US government will also positively hang, draw and quarter anyone caught sponsoring it. That's the big difference. Various internal agencies have now been given powers that go (uncomfortably) far and can quite easily find out who's been giving money to whom, when and for what.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

That is the fundamental difference between then and now, and a lot of people are really questioning the continued activity and existence of this organisation. Particularly in light of recent activities and their stance on those activities..

A lot of people were questioning the existance of this organization then too, probably more. You remember: "the IRA playing their last card" and all that rubbish.

Lemming wrote:

Do you think that that couldn't happen again? And given that Bush is a) a bit black and white in his thinking, and b) evidently running out of patience with SF/IRA I wouldn't rule out a return to the pariah existance with added interest.

No, i don't as a matter of fact. Bush doesn't give a minutes thought about NI.
So long as the IRA aren't blowing stuff up, nobody is particularly caring about what goes on. There's a lot of political posturing atm and generally looking politically correct for the cameras. But the yanks don't really want to sink their teeth into this affair, rather this Paddy's day for them is something that the media has come knocking on their door, and they're bothered to deal with it. But Bush isn't going to get pro-active here, NI is a complicated issue and successive US administrations have been anathema to get involved, just like Clinton explained - "..because it's such a thorny problem".

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

A lot of people were questioning the existance of this organization then too, probably more. You remember: "the IRA playing their last card" and all that rubbish.

As I've said before. SF/IRA. were. not. on. cease-fire. back. then.
They are now. Back then they could just play the old "we are at war" mantra they spun and got the closed ranks from the community. Not so any more.

No, i don't as a matter of fact. Bush doesn't give a minutes thought about NI.
So long as the IRA aren't blowing stuff up, nobody is particularly caring about what goes on. There's a lot of political posturing atm and generally looking politically correct for the cameras. But the yanks don't really want to sink their teeth into this affair, rather this Paddy's day for them is something that the media has come knocking on their door, and they're bothered to deal with it. But Bush isn't going to get pro-active here, NI is a complicated issue and successive US administrations have been anathema to get involved, just like Clinton explained - "..because it's such a thorny problem".

Once again you are overlooking Bush's simplicity. Black. White. No in-between. Add to that his pledge to american voters to combat terrorism wherever it exists. Add to that no need for the US to send in military forces or lose lives and it's an easy popularity spinner back home to be seen to stamp on the 'big, bad terrorists'.

Sleepy

Sleepy wrote:

If donations are currently anonymous, how are Sinn Fein's claims that their funding is legit substantiated?

Should people ever cop on and the IRA be disbanded, what happens to it's financial assets?

I'll ask these questions again as I notice none of the party faithful have noticed them.

jman0

Lemming wrote:

As I've said before. SF/IRA. were. not. on. cease-fire. back. then.
They are now. Back then they could just play the old "we are at war" mantra they spun and got the closed ranks from the community. Not so any more.



Once again you are overlooking Bush's simplicity. Black. White. No in-between. Add to that his pledge to american voters to combat terrorism wherever it exists. Add to that no need for the US to send in military forces or lose lives and it's an easy popularity spinner back home to be seen to stamp on the 'big, bad terrorists'.

There were various ceasefires during the course of the troubles.
I suppose you can just keep wishing for Bush to sort out the Republicans for you. I wouldn't hold my breath if i were you. Everytime a US politician starts getting involved they generally get hammered by letters and interest groups, various organizations and it's a headache best to avoid.

Lemming

jman0 wrote:

There were various ceasefires during the course of the troubles.

None of which resulted in the GFA.

I suppose you can just keep wishing for Bush to sort out the Republicans for you. I wouldn't hold my breath if i were you. Everytime a US politician starts getting involved they generally get hammered by letters and interest groups, various organizations and it's a headache best to avoid.

Once more can I point to the big sign that says "post 9/11" with regards the US. I don't expect the USA to go sort out SF/IRA, but I reckon that they could well be lining up to cause some unmerciful grief that will seriously affect SF/IRA

monument

Lemming wrote:

2. No Irish party has had an (at the least) active armed wing since we gained independance if I recall.

(as I've said this here a lot, to some I may just sound as if I'm repeating my self...)

Although Pat Rabbitte also doesn’t recall this, his and old party ‘the Worker’s Party’ (once ‘SF the Worker’s Party’, before that ‘Official Sinn Fein’) – the people who “merged” with labour – had an “active armed wing”, the then ‘Official IRA’.

The link was made in court by a Garda at the Proinsias De Rossa libel trial. The court did not find the Garda’s statements untrue, just that De Rossa was libelled by the Sunday Independent, in an article written by Eamon Dunphy.

(It all just sounds a bit two much like SF's claim that they and the IRA are not the same!)

Stabshauptmann

oscarBravo wrote:

In my experience, it's not so much a question of "can not" as "will not". Lots of people learn from the mistakes of others.

Would you agree that perhaps we learn more, or learn more effectivly from our own mistakes than the mistakes of others.

You're misquoting George Santayana: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

News to me but thanks for the correction, Im not familiar with George Santayana but had heard "History is doomed to repeat itself" many a time before.

lemming wrote:

1. SF/IRA are *meant* be on cease-fire, but are still engaging in activities that are less than sociable

Thats half a good arguement. The IRA is meant to be on ceasefire, according to the international monitoring commission they are. SF make every effort to maintain the IRA ceasefire. I think you *know* something but its so obvious to you that you dont *bother* expressing it in a convincing way

2. No Irish party has had an (at the least) active armed wing since we gained independance if I recall.

You recall incorrectly.
FF: eventually ditced the old IRA but not till the 1940s
FC: The blue shirts were formed after independance
Labour: Was linked with Irish Citizens Army before independance and merged with political wings of OIRA not too long ago.

I think it does. Being attached to a bunch of psychos and sadists who are quite partial to carrying out all manner of crimes and then saying "it's ok because we did it, therefore it doesn't count" would bother most people I should imagine.

My point was that we as a nation north and south have repeatedly voted for parties with links to private armies. Thats why I deduce that it doesnt really bother us.
You say it DOES because it SHOULD. Can you see the small gap in logic? I agree it should bother us, but as far as I can see it doesnt.

Most people have the knives out because SF/IRA have armed men running around unchecked, not because SF/IRA are called SF/IRA.[/quote]