"Follow the money." That's the mantra all journalism students get drummed into them.

Do that, the professors would profess, and you'll find the truth.

In Bermuda's democracy, following the money, or in this case the truth, is impossible when it comes to political campaign contributions.

Who is giving to which political parties and how much is a secret kept with a level of concealment usually reserved for national security.

Presumably both political parties and their donors have basked in the glory of this secrecy for decades.

And with all things rarely equal, one party has likely benefited more than the other, and historically, it is fair to say, that was the United Bermuda Party.

Going forward, the party that wins the fundraiser race may change from time to time, but the game will not.

In fact, at the senior levels of the Parliamentary Registry, no one can remember campaign finance regulations even floated as an idea.

Our Registry, equivalent to electoral commissions in other countries, is the agency most likely to police campaign contributions if new laws are ever passed in Bermuda. They won't be.

Journalists and political observers in the United States and elsewhere are amazed at the free and unchecked flow of political contributions in our wealthy homeland.

In the US, regulations covering political donations would fill a small room. In Britain, the Police are investigating allegations that the Labour Party gave seats in the House of Lords to the most generous donors.

The risk is that at the very least, donations buy access that others can never get. At worst, money buys whole governments.

Leaders inside both of Bermuda's political parties highlight our unique size as reasons that public donor lists might not serve as well in this democracy as it has in others.

Voters may be skittish to have their private political leanings so publicly scrutinised.

And in fairness, it would be a shame to have people afraid to make political contributions when, at least according to some jurists, campaign donations are in the family of free speech.

And no newspaper would ever wish to see that cardinal right restricted.

But if a little less cash in the coffers of politicians is the cost voters must endure in the pursuit of transparency and public confidence ? it's worth every dime lost.

It's important to point out that there is no proof of corruption or political quid pro quo in our civic minded country.

That may lead some to say: the system works fine, we don't need any campaign fundraising regulations.

But they should remember that the best laws are the ones passed before they are needed, not after.

The other argument is that the Opposition UBP never complained about campaign financing when it was the government, and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

But there is another old truism that counters that: two wrongs don't make a right.