Nippon Keidanren, or the Japan Business Federation, is moving toward the resumption of donations to political parties. As a preliminary step, the organization has published a report evaluating key policies of the two largest parties, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Party of Japan. The "grade report" is expected to serve as a guide for member corporations in deciding which party to help, or not to help.

Opponents of corporate donations criticize Keidanren, the nation's largest business lobby, for trying again to "buy policy with money." The criticism is predictable given a series of money scandals that have poisoned relations between politics and business. The list includes the Lockheed payoff scandal of the 1970s to the early '80s, which led to the conviction of the late Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka, and the stock-for-favors Recruit case, which caused the Cabinet of the late Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita to resign in 1989.

However, there also is a positive aspect to Keidanren's move to restart donations: It intends to link them to policy in a transparent manner. Publication of the policy evaluation of the LDP and the DPJ -- the likely contenders in the hoped-for two-party system -- is also designed to stimulate policy debate.

Thus Keidanren is breathing new life, so to speak, into the donations policy it scrapped in 1993 when a spate of corruption scandals roiled the nation. Those scandals, including bribery cases involving major construction companies, created a public perception that corporate funding for political activities was responsible for "collusion" between politics and business. The business community, however, was divided over the decision. One view held that ending donations would reduce the corporate say in politics. But more reform-minded executives maintained that private corporations should make greater efforts to make specific policy proposals, instead of just providing campaign funds.

Keidanren's new donations policy seems to incorporate these two positions. The underlying belief is that voluntary donations from businesses and other private-sector organizations will help political parties maintain their independence and identities, provided the money is given not only in a fish-bowl setting but also in ways that encourage policy debate in the recipient parties.

And there is the rub: Keidanren appears to want, for all practical purposes, to serve as the "conduit" for donations -- the same role it essentially played until 1993. Although it says it will only "encourage" members to donate, the impression persists, particularly among the critics of corporate donations, that big business is trying once again to flex its financial muscle to bend public policy.

It should also be noted that many Keidanren members are not in favor of resuming donations. In fact, quite a few believe that political activities should be financed mainly by state subsidies and individual donations. In 2003, political parties received more than 30 billion yen in public funds. There is no denying the possibility of political donations helping to revive corrupt money-power politics.

The Keidanren report evaluates 10 different categories of policy, such as social security, science and technology, and education, in five grades from A to E. However, foreign and defense policy is not included, apparently due to a lack of consensus within the organization. Generally, the LDP is rated higher than the DPJ. Perhaps this is to be expected because of Keidanren's traditional sympathy toward the LDP.

The ruling party has received A's in two categories: science and technology, and nuclear energy and the environment. By contrast, the DPJ has received no A's; the highest grade given is B. It is unclear, though, how these conclusions were reached. We suggest that the process of evaluation, not just its results, be published. That would also help individual voters in future elections.

Going a step further, Keidanren plans to publish a second report, perhaps in mid-2004, evaluating the parties' performance in the current regular Diet session, which is scheduled to end in June. To make a fair analysis, though, it will be necessary to improve the evaluation system itself.

At any rate, Keidanren's move to prioritize policy matters is of great significance, particularly because it holds eminent status as Japan's most influential business organization. Other business groups can be expected to follow suit in expressing their own views on a variety of policy issues. This will inject an essential element of transparency into corporate donations.

Still, political parties may be tempted to tailor their policies to the needs of the business community if they become more dependent on corporate donations. Such anxiety, however, can be allayed or removed if these contributions serve as a catalyst for open and competitive policy debate.