Now, if you're of a mind, when given these two scenarios it's not hard to join dots - and come up with a conspiracy theory. And never forget a lot of the people who love a good conspiracy theory are also xenophobes, and given this was Asian money, you've got the whole smoking gun.
Money to a party, a new MP, and, of course, they'd be taking orders direct from President Xi.
The more realistic scenario is that people who give money to parties, like their country, have a political view, and want to be an active part of the process. In other words, it's done for good and worthwhile reasons.
You want to lay a claim? Look at the unions. Where does Labour's money come from? The unions. Do you think they give with no expectation of a return?
Anyway the alternative, if we don't raise money the way we do now, is that it's the taxpayer who forks out. And how do we decide who to give money to? And how much do we give?
Alternatively the way things operate now, you could argue is unfair. ACT is supported by business, business has money, ACT have no support, so bang for buck they box a mile above their weight.
Meantime the poor old Greens are supported by Roman sandal-wearers who grow their own worms, live off the land, and don't have a bean to rub together. In fact they probably only have beans to give, and yet they're part of the government.
So no it is not a level playing field.
But there are rules and disclosures, and overall we are a country where corruption and scandal appear to have been kept at bay. And even if you have been busy joining all the dots out of the Jami-Lee Ross scenario, I think you'd be alone in your conspiracy.
You want a messed up system look at America's. This is where big money buys big influence, so big it's a multi billion dollar industry.
The good news is, although not perfect given there is no such thing as perfect, we don't, I think, actually have a problem at all.
And you know what they say about things that aren't broke.
