At the heart of the current controversy are the large gifts by Clubs NSW and the Australian Hotels and Hospitality Association, Victoria, to Liberal MP Kevin Andrews and fundraising bodies associated with him, at a time when he was the responsible shadow minister for poker machine legislation.

What does it all mean though? All smoke and no fire it would seem if we are to believe the main players and even the investigative reportage.

In highlighting the donations Fairfax Media ever so carefully "does not suggest the donations directly influenced Mr Andrews' decision making". But, it said correctly, the donations highlighted lax regulation of political donations in Australia. The reporting and the editorials, to be even-handed, made it clear that Labor was no better in this regard.

The Prime Minister took his cue and responded that the Gillard Labor government also accepted money from the same sources when it was weakening its own regulation of poker machines. This is the "we are no worse than the other mob" style of argument that is frequently heard when money and politics is discussed. As even the Opposition Leader noted, this is always a strange way to excuse your own side of politics. It sets a very low bar and, reading between the lines, admits that both sides of politics are equally guilty rather than declaring innocence.

Andrews himself followed another familiar refrain that any suggestion that he was influenced by the donations was "wrong and offensive", pointing out that his party's policy development on gambling reform was basically completed by the time the donations were made. So perhaps the donation was belated gratitude.

Clubs NSW itself denied even any hint of wrongdoing at all, stressing that the donations were made for "no particular purpose" and certainly not with the intention of influencing policy. This too is a fairly standard defence by large associations and corporations which make political donations. Only a few honest individuals and groups admit they prefer one side of politics over the other.

The exercise of influence in politics is always very difficult to pin down. There are so many influences on political outcomes that even detailed case studies find it very difficult to be absolutely sure.

In the case of political donations the same is true. Some donors just want one side of politics to win. There is nothing wrong with that except when it is covered up. Even these donors sometimes also give money to the other side as a form of insurance in a two-horse race and so as not to seem too one-sided for their shareholders.

Various distinctions are made. One is between access, getting a hearing, and influence, getting the desired result. It is all right to admit the first motivation but not the second. Another distinction is made between immediate and long-term influence. The former is immediately rejected as improper by all concerned, but the latter is regarded as an admissible aim. Long-term influence comes from long-term relationships which are regularly topped up socially and financially.

Donations can be made to individual MPs, directly or indirectly to their fundraising arms. They can also be made to the head office of the party concerned. The latter has the benefit of letting individuals off the hook because they can deny indignantly that they had any knowledge of the donation in question. But that can only apply to current donations. All intelligent MPs know who the big donors to their party have been in the past because they must be publicly reported. It is a reasonable presumption that those past donations from particular sectors and corporations will be continued.

MPs can also fairly make the point, as Andrews did in his defence, that policy-making is a collective business involving various policy committees and decision-making bodies. However, any minister or shadow minister must have some influence unless they are relatively impotent. So that becomes a self-defeating argument.

These controversies show that the focus on third party lobbyists is misplaced. Lobbyist regulation concentrates on employed lobbyists rather than those corporations or associations who are paying the bills. Such regulation, while well meaning, misses a huge slice of the politics of influence.

The controversies also regularly reveal shock and indignation from MPs that anyone should think that there is any connection between political donations and influence. For them lobbying is part of the comfortable furniture of politics and an easy source of fan mail and campaign funds. They mix regularly with self-interested lobbyists who support the system financially.

However, they should put themselves in the shoes of ordinary citizens. It is not unreasonable for citizens to conclude that where there is smoke there is fire. Some donors may be altruistic and even-handed but others, surely, are seeking a return on their investment.

Those political leaders, like Mike Baird, Premier of NSW, who seem to genuinely want to reform the political donation laws should be encouraged. But even the best regulation can only go so far. We would all like public policy to be based primarily on public interest, merit and rationality. But it is hard to escape the conclusion that money and self-interest will usually find a way.

John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.

John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au