What we do know about the activities of the NZ First Foundation is enough for concern.
Details of the donations and donors have not been declared by the foundation, but have now been disclosed by RNZ. Between April 2017 and August 2019, nearly $500,000 was deposited into the foundation's bank account by donors, including from some of New Zealand's wealthiest business people.
• Rich and powerful: NZ First Foundation donors revealed
• NZ First undeclared donations: Serious Fraud Office to investigate
• NZ First Foundation donor: 'I clearly believed I was helping NZ First get in'
• NZ First Foundation donor thought they were giving to party
Over the same period, the foundation spent more than $425,000 paying bills for the New Zealand First Party, including campaign advertising expenses, political consultants' fees, renting and setting up a campaign HQ in Wellington, and running the party's website.
What we do not know, however, is of more concern.
NZ First Party leader Winston Peters has denied any wrongdoing, welcomed an inquiry into the foundation and says the issue underscores the importance of reviewing the donations regime. He's right, but a wider review may have to wait.
At the very core of the concern right now is whether or not the foundation is a separate entity to the political party and what financial information it should be disclosing.
Its two trustees are former NZ First MP Doug Woolerton and NZ First's current judicial officer, Brian Henry. The judicial officer gives legal advice to the board of the party, serves as a member of its constitution committee and chairs the disputes committee.
A proposal to set up the foundation, approved by the New Zealand First board in March 2017, declared the fund would be a "legally established autonomous organisation that would operate independently of and at arm's length" to the board.
Editorial: Momentum important in home insulation rules
The foundation now has to explain one of two things. Either it is not "a body or group of persons who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party" or if the foundation can show it is a separate entity then the money spent paying New Zealand First's bills become donations and need to be disclosed as such.
So far, New Zealand First has disclosed three loan amounts from the foundation, but the foundation has never been listed on electoral returns as making party donations.
This week, the media revelations were enough for the Electoral Commission to rule "the donations were not properly transmitted to the party and not disclosed as required by the Electoral Act 1993" and refer the matter to police.
Given the amounts of money potentially involved, the police have referred the matter to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
It's not only NZ First beneath the cumulonimbus. Just over a week ago, the SFO filed criminal charges against four people relating to donations paid into a National Party electorate bank account, although a spokesperson for party leader Simon Bridges pointed out no one in the National Party has been charged.
With a General Election looming, it is in the interests of every voter - and the country at large - that full transparency is offered by all involved and any inquiries can be expedited.