Britain, but financier Michael Ashcroft has taken the tradition a stage further.

He is treasurer of the party to which he is the biggest donor.

Ashcroft, a 53-year-old multi-millionaire with Belizean and British citizenship and the owner of Bermuda-registered ADT until he sold it, is fighting back against a campaign by Britain's Times newspaper to force him out of his position controlling the purse strings of the opposition Conservatives.

"It is my intention to continue,'' he declared in a weekend radio interview.

The party, after some hesitation, has rallied round its controversial treasurer and accused his critics of a smear campaign.

Compared in some newspapers to a character from a Graham Greene novel, Ashcroft has acknowledged giving the Conservatives 1 million ($1.56 million) a year for the past three years -- a fortune to a party which has hit hard times since it was routed from government by the Labour Party in 1997.

Ashcroft has confirmed that the party's overdraft has remained at 4 million since it went into opposition.

Conservative leader William Hague has stoutly defended Ashcroft, apparently taking the view that his value to the party as treasurer and chief donor outweighs any damage done by controversy in the Press.

But political commentators are starting to ask how long Ashcroft, however innocent, can continue without reawakening memories of the sleaze that helped the Conservatives slide to defeat at the 1997 general election.

Funding of political parties in Britain is on the verge of a revolution following a report last year by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which the government has promised to turn into law before the next election.

The committee has recommended much more transparency about donors and a ceiling on spending in national elections of 20 million. In 1997, the Conservatives spent 28 million and Labour 26 million.

In the days of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, much Conservative funding came from major UK companies and from a variety of secretive private donors overseas, leaving the party dogged by an endless series of scandals and accusations about influence-peddling.

Hague knows times have changed and has anticipated the wave of reform by publishing the names of all those who give more than 5,000 and by ruling out foreign donations.

Ashcroft's case shows how hard it is for all parties -- not just the Conservatives -- to come to terms with the new rules on political funding.

Since 1997 it has been Labour, not the Conservatives, who have been embarrassed by suggestions of influence-peddling.

Anxious to be less dependent on its traditional trade union paymasters, Labour has tried to broaden its sources of cash.

But the new strategy backfired spectacularly within months of the election victory when the party had to return 1 million to motor racing tycoon Bernie Ecclestone at a time the government was deciding policy on tobacco sponsorship of sport.

Labour says it has now managed to pay off its overdraft and is starting to gather funds for the next general election.

But after the Ecclestone controversy, both companies and individuals are thinking hard before committing themselves.

A 50,000 donation to Labour by television entrepreneur Greg Dyke plunged him into controversy when he became a candidate to run the state British Broadcasting Corporation.

Dyke eventually got the job, but the lesson was clear: now that political donations are to be public knowledge, those who may be in line for a public appointment would do better to keep their cash in their wallets. -- Reuters