The debate is likely to continue for some time over whether then-Transport Minister Ewart Brown's 2002 luncheon in Washington, D.C. constituted “pay to play”, as Opposition Leader Grant Gibbons has alleged, or that it was simply a matter of close friends of the Minister making campaign contributions.

However, it does add weight to the argument that Bermuda's political system should have some form of public disclosure for campaign contributions to political parties and to individual candidates is needed.

It is fair to say that neither of the Island's major political parties have shown much interest in this issue, and it is also reasonable to assume that both have plenty to hide.

That's all the more reason why contributions should be disclosed. Until it is done, contributions and why such and such an individual or company got such and such a contract will always be open to rumour and innuendo of the kind that has swirled around Dr. Brown since news of the lunch was revealed.

The Progressive Labour Party promised in 1998 and reiterated the promise in 2003 to operate in an open and transparent way and the United Bermuda Party has made a good deal of political mileage revealing just how the Government has failed to meet those promises in the last seven years.

On that basis, one would think that both parties would be keen to open up their books to the general public, but based on UBP MP Trevor Moniz's Sisyphean struggle just to get a watered down register of interests in place, the betting here is that neither party is likely to bring this issue to the forefront.

To be sure, it could well result in both parties losing a good deal of financial support. When the National Liberal Party was launched it promised to reveal its sources of financing, but soon backed down when it became clear that few of its contributors were prepared to make their names public.

Be that as it may, the time is surely long past for Bermuda to join most other democracies by instituting public disclosure laws for the Island.

Jumping the gun

Whether you love him or hate him, no one can deny that Tourism and Transport Minister Ewart Brown's effectiveness and desire to get things done.

But he should beware of treating the laws and rules that govern the Island and its environment with a cavalier disdain.

That has become clear in the recent brouhaha over the stage being built as Horseshoe Bay.

While the construction of the temporary stage before planning permission had been granted has been blamed on an overzealous contractor, Dr. Brown's response - that he would not let “naysayers and anti-progressive elements” get in his Ministry's way, was an extreme over-reaction.

How much better to admit that a mistake had been made and that the proper channels would now be pursued.

That people who care about the pristine beauty of the Island's beaches can be deemed as “anti-progressive” is a stretch. Worse is the cavalier attitude to the island's laws that Dr. Brown and all Cabinet Ministers are sworn to uphold.

No one objects to improving the Island's tourism industry. But in a free society, people are entitled to object and the rule of law must be upheld. Instead, they are being told to be silent and, effectively, to let those who know better get on with it.

That's a dangerous philosophy to hold over the relatively minor matter of the construction of a stage; what's more worrying is how that same attitude could be applied to many more significant matters of Government policy.