Kettle blacker than the pot when it comes to political fundraising | Michael White | guardian.co.uk‏

Party funding is a dark and murky issue. Each side has a vested interest in keeping the status quo as each side currently has access to significant funding from a small number of sources, i.e. Unions for Labour and business for Tories.
To be honest, I don't know what the solution should be. Labour should certainly fight this election within its means. So far I think I've made the party a profit (including the funds from my most recent fundraiser)

David Cameron should either sack William Hague or Lord Ashcroft, says Harriet Harman | Politics |

I'd like to see some trouble for the Tories, so from that point of view it would be good. But should it really be in their hands, or is it for the authorities?
Ashcroft is a devicive figure due to the amount of money he has ploughed into the Tories in the past ten years, so the stakes will be high and the rhetoric hot. But if there's a serious issue here it needs to be teased out and dealt with.
Trouble for the Tories is good for me

Lord Ashcroft

I'm not a big fan of him.
His tax status is shrouded in mystery, but i'm not sure it really should be public knowledge, but then he's bank-rolling the party that will probably form the next government. So it probably should be transparent.
In the way that some criticise Labour for being funded by Union, the Tories' funding by Lord Ashcroft is more worrying. At least the Unions are transparent.

The article above slags him off, rightly. But going on about the poverty in Belize and his power and influence there didn't really grab me. Apparently he owns everything through some very shadowy businesses practices. Which I suppose is important in light of his support for, and bankrolling of, the Tories.
I don't like having a (soon to be) governing party so dependent on the monies of one man. He shouldn't have so much power