Source: Blic
Rodoljub Sabic Commissioner for Information
British public is these days shook by the information from one investigation. The topic of investigation is collection of funds for financing previous electoral campaign. The investigation didn't circumvent the highest officials, and judging by everything it shall confirm the doubts regarding existence of secret funds, that is, funds from otherwise prohibited anonymous donations.In order to "save what can be saved", explanation has been given that the donors have in exchange received only something which is at least formally "legal". Allegedly, for that purpose they have used the usual right of the Party leaders to propose to the Crown the candidates for noble title, that is, membership in the House of Lord. In Britain such conservative values still have their price, so there are many of those who are ready to accept the "explanation".
However, the public has been divided, because there are many of those who think that counter-services to donors must have been much more specific.
A large interest of our public for funding of the electoral campaign reminds us of the one in Britain, but everything else is more or less different. In our case a part of the public doubting even just formal legality of certain donations is much larger. Chances that this should be checked and explained in a serious way, with adequate consequences, are much smaller. We do not have the gentry. Nor the House of Lords. Nor many of much more important things. Including the right answer to the question - why, although an adequate law has been passed already in 2004, we do not have state auditing institution?
