Labour councillor John Ennis started the debate by suggesting tory parliamentary candidate Alok Sharma is able to "pay for people to deliver fancy leaflets of airbrushed politicians that actually say nothing about what they are going to do" because he is funded by the "an exiled Tory grandee who doesn't even live in the country."
West Reading independent left-wing councillor Tony Jones picked up on this claim asking:
"with all the fuss about MPs expenses, what should we think if Alok Sharma gets into Parliament with a campaign paid for by questionable money? "This provided Linda Fort with the opportunity to give Conservative spokesman Paul Swaddle a right of reply.
However he could only state that Belize-based billionaire Lord Ashcroft does not directly provide any funds to Conservative campaigns in Reading.
He then attempted to deflect the attack by attacking the 'cheap political points' made by opponents and the holier-than-thou attitude of Labour activists who are funded by wealth donors themselves.
Meanwhile Liberal Democrats have joined in the debate.
Cllr Warren Swaine notes the "inevitable mudslinging" in the affair is the result of confusion caused by inaccurate details.
To clear up the confusion he corrects the mistakes by identifying from the official record the three millionaires who do contribute to Mr Sharma's campaign, explaining that Lord Ashcroft has provided direct funds to the Conservative campaign in Reading East - not Reading West.
He goes on to describe Labour's 'wallet envy' as an attack motivated by purely partisan interests which follows internal dissent in the trade union movement leading to reductions in their contributions to the Labour cause.
Tilehurst's Cllr Ricky Duveen joins in to say donations from such millionaires who fund party politics for self-advancement should be forced to repay the millions they have spent buying influence.
He comments that fraudulent tax-evaders who fund politics are a "disaster for democracy."
More from on the election trail.