IT is like something out of a Hollywood movie starring Gene Hackman or Tom Cruise. The idea that murky US intelligence agencies might have had a hand in downing the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland could have come from a John Grisham novel.

Last week, the president of the European parliament, Hans-Gert Pottering, raised the spectre of an EU investigation into any possible association between US military agencies and the Irish lobby group Libertas, which campaigned successfully for a 'No' vote in the Lisbon Treaty referendum. Declan Ganley of Libertas has described Pottering's remarks as "utterly outrageous".

Ganley may be "outraged" but it turns out that Libertas, in fact, had very unusual financing during the referendum. And Ganley's American company, Rivada, has lucrative defence contracts with US government agencies. Some Americans wanted the Irish to vote 'No', and thus weaken the prospects of a stronger united Europe with its own army.

Pottering is a German conservative (CDU), one of many EU politicians now worried about the prospect of Libertas spreading to other European countries. The so-called "Conference of Presidents" (leaders of the main political groupings in the EU parliament) met last week to discuss Libertas in the light of unproven allegations about US connections in the Irish Lisbon Treaty referendum.

Even the name Libertas has a special American ring to it. Although it is an old Latin word that may simply mean "freedom", its other translation as "liberty" has a particular right-wing resonance in the USA. There, in recent years, the word "liberty" is a rallying cry associated with the sort of market ideology that is now unravelling in the world of finance.

Anyone watching closely the current US presidential election knows just how dirty and rough they play the political game in Washington. It is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibility that US intelligence services might have attempted to coax or encourage Ganley to take the plunge and oppose Lisbon.

Not that Ganley needed coaxing by anyone. It turns out that he gave Libertas a "personal loan" of €200,000 from his personal wealth, wealth that is estimated to be €300m. The "loan" was a neat way to get around Irish law that limits donations to political organisations to just €6,348.69 per person (IR£5,000). It would have been impossible if Irish election laws were stricter.

The State body charged with ensuring transparency in political funding -- the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) -- was itself not being very transparent last week. It refused to say if it is now investigating the Libertas "loan" to see if it was genuine, or was in breach of the rules.

On Thursday last, leaders of the main political grouping in the EU parliament decided to convey their concerns to SIPO, noting that recent statements by Ganley -- "in apparent contradiction to earlier assurances", as they put it -- confirmed that he had made a personal loan of €200,000 to the Libertas campaign. Confirmation of his "loan" makes Libertas look now, more than ever, like a one-man band.

Not that Libertas is the first organisation with a political agenda that has operated against the spirit of Irish electoral law. Fianna Fail, for example, has in the past spent large sums on campaigns that just happened to end before a particular electoral period commenced and the law on funding then kicked in. During the Lisbon referendum, prospective Fianna Fail candidates in forthcoming local and European elections also used Lisbon 'Yes' posters as a means to get themselves some additional personal publicity that might otherwise have been unavailable under Irish electoral rules.

One glaring aspect of the Lisbon referendum result was the failure of EU and mainstream Irish politicians to keep in touch with the electorate or to address real concerns satisfactorily before people voted. But last week's intervention by the EU president has highlighted another major issue. That is the extent to which Irish electoral laws might not be effective in stopping rich interest groups, including, possibly, foreign governments, from tipping the scales unfairly in one direction or another.

During the contentious abortion and divorce referenda, allegations were made that right-wing US Christian groups bank-rolled some of the anti-abortion and anti-divorce campaigns. Now comes Declan Ganley's Libertas. Ganley reportedly said this month that his company Rivada has won US military contracts worth over $200m.

President Poettering of the EU parliament said last week, "I have been following this whole matter very attentively for some time. We do indeed need absolute transparency on this because this is exactly what those who are attacking us [in the EU] demand. However, they must of course comply with these standards themselves, ie, they must provide total transparency on what funds this organisation."

Pottering continued: "Mr Ganley claimed that the donations come from ordinary citizens, and that they are small donations. According to the reports, he now has admitted that he himself has donated €200,000 of his personal assets to his organisation, and it has also been confirmed in the meantime that Mr Ganley has signed contracts with the Pentagon over the execution of military orders amounting to about 200 million -- I believe -- dollars. Other estimates are much higher. We must continue to follow this affair very closely. The facts must be put on the table. We cannot allow Europe to be harmed by people who demand transparency but do not provide it themselves."

Pottering weakened his point by going on to give a hearty political endorsement to Minister of European Affairs Dick Roche. This made him appear partisan. There is something odd about associating Fianna Fail with attempts to discredit Libertas on the grounds of Ganley's commercial connections with the US military when Fianna Fail's own support for US forces stopping at Shannon helped to fuel fears about neutrality amongst some of those who voted 'No'.

It would be foolish of the EU or Irish Government to think that they can blame the defeat of the Lisbon Treaty on publicity paid for by Libertas. Or on broadcasting legislation that requires equal time for both sides (when most political parties supported a 'Yes' vote in the case of the Lisbon Treaty).

The Irish Constitution ensures that minority voices cannot simply be rolled over by big political parties during a referendum campaign. Both the argument for and against a proposed change in the Constitution have to be given equal status, even if one is not well represented among TDs or senators. The political class does not like the rule, but it is there to protect the Constitution of this state.

Some broadcasters do not like it either. At a Broadcasting Commission of Ireland conference this month, the chairman of the Independent Broadcasters of Ireland, Willie O'Reilly (of Today FM), complained that they were "strait-jacketed" into dividing time equally. He felt that "by giving equal time to both sides, we gave the 'No' case more credibility and less scrutiny than it deserved".

But it is up to the parties on both sides to argue their points persuasively, and many voters felt that the 'Yes' side just took them for granted. Ganley himself put it like this: "The fact is when you have a really bad product, it's really hard to sell." The main political parties will not reverse the Lisbon result by making a scapegoat of Declan Ganley or Libertas. They will only persuade people to change their minds on the basis of real arguments and hard facts.