Just confirming what we already thought

A quarter of a million can get you a lot of things, granted not as much as it could say 25 years ago, but still, I doubt that many of us would turn our noses up at being offered that amount. However when you are touting access to the Prime Minister for a party donation, then you're well into the realms of corruption, it doesn't matter how you spin it, it looks bad.
Telegraph.

Peter Cruddas, who runs an online trading company, allegedly told potential donors that gifts of more than £200,000 would get them into the party's "premier league."
This would be enough to get donors invitations to dinners with the Prime Minister and George Osborne, the Chancellor, it was alleged. Mr Cruddas was apparently filmed making the offer to undercover reporters.
He was filmed apparently telling reporters posing as businessmen that making a large donation would be "awesome for your business" and that "things will open up for you".
The party immediately launched an "urgent" amid signals from senior sources that Mr Cruddas's future as co-treasurer was being immediately reviewed.
In a statement Mr Cruddas said: "Specifically, it was categorically not the case that I could offer, or that David Cameron would consider, any access as a result of a donation. Similarly, I have never knowingly even met anyone from the number ten policy unit. But in order to make that clear beyond doubt, I have regrettably decided to resign with immediate effect.”

Most people who read this blog will probably already have an extremely jaundiced view of politicians anyway, regarding them as corrupt incompetent parasites on an already debased political system that rewards theft and peculation throughout the entire system. So what Cruddas did has not really come as a great surprise, after all most of the political parties are struggling to maintain their memberships (and failing) and are looking to donors to top up their funds, though heaven alone knows the parties themselves could increase their memberships simply by offering the public something they want, such as an exit from the EU. As it is, donations can mean that the donator is after influence on policy or access to those who can influence policy. After all, the golden rule applies in that the man with the gold makes the rules. Yet what Cruddas has done along with the unions in Labour's case is bring the entire system into disrepute as the public see that votes and influence can clearly be bought.
Yet what's worse will be the inevitable call for party funding to be made by state funding, in other words getting those of us who hold the system in utter contempt to pay for the parasites via taxation and thus giving the big two and a half parties a virtual monopoly on power. Frankly I don't want any of my money going to any political party I don't choose to support anyway, if they want my money, offer me something I want, then I'll consider it, as it is, none of them do, certainly on average anyway. Even a party I might consider supporting has decided it doesn't want my vote anyway (hello UKIP, yes, you don't want EDL members, so you forfeit my vote) So why the hell should any of us pay for them out of our pockets?
We really should just hang them all and start again, pour encourager les autres.