Even in the midst of yet another “sleaze” scandal, it almost seems unfair to compare campaign finance in America and Britain. Before a candidate has even been chosen, enough money has been rustled up in the 2008 US presidential campaign to pay for five  UK general elections.  And – so far – no Britons have found themselves behind bars for breaking electoral laws.

Yet there are some striking similarities in the extraordinary misjudgements made by donors and politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. And some differences that certainly do not bolster the Labour party defence.

Take the story of the Paws. In an outstanding investigation, the Wall Street Journal discovered that one of the biggest sources of funding for Hillary Clinton’s campaign came from a family of six living in a modest house under the flight path of San Francisco airport. Here’s a picture of the Paw house:

The Paw household lived on the income of a postman but managed to scrape together enough pennies to donate more than $200,000 to Democratic candidates.

The family were linked to Norman Hsu, who now sits in prison facing charges of grand theft. Before his fall from grace, Mr Hsu become the “Hillraiser”, a title awarded to people who “bundle” donations of more than $100,000 for the Clinton campaign. It is worth comparing the Paw dwelling to the house of Ray Ruddick, seen below.

The jobbing builder and bingo enthusiast  found himself at the centre of a British political storm after donating £196,850 to Labour on behalf of David Abrahams, a wealthy landlord from Newcastle. The blue transit van is owned by Mr Ruddick.

Since the Sunday Mail contacted a startled Mr Ruddick it has emerged that Mr Abrahams channelled money through a total of four associates: a builder, a lollipop lady, a lawyer and a secretary. A bishop and a judge are leading an investigation for the prime minister.

Now the Paws and the Ruddicks are not the first households to be used as “straw men” for overenthusiastic donors to political parties.

The Republicans dug up a string of financing scandals through the 1990s that are so farcical they make the Paws and the Ruddicks look rather boring.