Jack Straw, Leader of the House, is right to defend the role of the rich to provide funding for political parties. You should be free to donate as much or as little as you like. But the wealth of his doners does not compare to the riches that hypocrisy attaches to these statements.
Labour said parties should be allowed to draw up their own rules on donations - including whether to impose caps - and backed more state funding, as well as strict limits on campaign spending.
In his speech to the conference, Mr Straw argued that "giving money to those parties is not dodgy but honourable". He said Labour should be "grateful to the so-called 'high value' donors - people who have made money but instead of spending it all on themselves give some of it, often in large amounts, to our party.
"They've done it to put something back, to fulfil their sense of civic duty," he said. "We are not defensive at all about this issue of funding. We have a very good story to tell. We have been at the forefront of ensuring complete transparency on this issue."
This is not the case, because you are under investigation from the police for promising peerages in return for funds. Instead of promoting a governance structure that allowed the party to monitor donations, Labour relied on Lord Levy and informal channels.
It can be embarrassing, especially if you accept money from unknown sources:
A financier who donated £2.4 million to the Liberal Democrats was jailed for two years yesterday for perjury and deception.
Michael Brown, 40, the Liberal Democrats' biggest donor who helped bankroll the party's last election campaign, gave false information in an affidavit and then tricked the authorities into giving him a new passport.
Will they hand the money back?