There are several issues with funding of political campaigning. Firstly, incumbent political interests use taxpayer dollars to point out how good things are and how things have improved (under them) under the guise of community information. So any opposition or challenger starts off well behind the play. Secondly, the issue is not how to push through and get heard by your constituency, but how to actually get them interested and paying attention. There is monumental apathy, disenchantment and scepticism infecting our electorate. Thirdly, the sheer cost of the media and methods presently used by political parties and politicians to "communicate" with us is ridiculous. Fourthly, the arrangements under which public funding is given to parties on a capitation basis is patently loaded in favour of those in ascendancy. The prospects of any new or dissenting voice getting heard are low, unless there is a "sensational" element, whether that be per the Barnaby Joyce and Pauline Hanson factor, or simply media interest in momentary coverage because of freshness and likely audience interest. We can fiddle with models of fairness and inclusion all we like. At the end of the day it is the bunch with the supporters with the deepest pockets who get the easiest ride, and that leads to all of what you are seeing now. Corporates donate to BOTH (major) parties, so whoever gets government is compromised ..... and we lose!

Top post Norman. Unfortunately there is no hope with two major parties prepared to corrupt the system. A balance of power in the NSW Upper House next week could see reform on a state basis. Elsewhere if Sen Santoro can be shown to have acted corruptly in influence peddling through share deals then John Howard's exhibited anger may translate into some real reform federally. Its a slim hope.

As a secondary topic, this article raises the issue of how political parties communicate with the public and how they are (or not) given access to the media. I come from a country (France) where televised political debates are a weekly, if not a daily occurence. The French just love their political debates! And I must say I do too. But in 14 years in Australia I cannot recall ever having seen a political debate on television, at least not in the form of a regular (say weekly) recurring program. How come? I for one would welcome a regular feature on television where representatives of each major party answer questions from a pannel of journalists and debate current affair issues so that we, the public, can be fully informed of the position of each party on that issue while it is at the forefront of media and public interest. This is particularly important because electoral campaigns tend to focus on a very narrow set of issues (taxes, interest rates, immigration...). Besides, if nothing else, watching political opponents debate major issues makes great entertainment!

The most important proposal in the article is the call for continuous disclosure of donations. The public has the right to know who is bankrolling the parties and independents, especially before an election. We have the case in my NSW seat Sydney of Clover Moore championing a ban on property developer donations. Yet, earlier this week we learned from one of her former staff members and a Sydney City Councillor who had been on the Living Sydney team in an Australian article that Clover took much property money for her 2004 Sydney Council campaign. We didn't learn this before many of us voted for her last time. Now I'd like to know who is giving her money for her very expensive campaign for the NSW seat of Sydney before we vote on Saturday. We need this sort of information.

I support the thrust of the article, but as I say in my post on Burke'n'Grill, the fundamental issue is the moral standards and expectations of the community. As with, for example, the proposal for a Second Chamber in Queensland to enhance standards, all the instituional reforms in the world will not bring about positive change without higher standards amongst the individuals which constitute our society and are ultimately responsible for the standards of government.

As some OLO readers know, my solution is the practise of Vipassana meditation, a reality-based technique for purifying the mind and eradicating the causes of unwholesome/negative behaviour, for living a life of Dhamma. My teacher, S N Goenka, stressed to students in Australia in the 1980s that this would only come about in society as a whole if the leaders embraceed it. Sadly, there is no sign of that, although it is the case in several Asian states/countries and there had been some modest success in the USA. In the meantime, the onus is on individuals to raise their own game, and by example lead others to do so, so that over time higher standards are demanded from government.

I agree with Faustino that Vippassana meditation or any other path to inner wisdom/enlightenment would be an answer if everyone took such paths (especially politicians!).

However, dramatic reform of the system of electoral finance could help clean up the mess in our country. Right now political donations distort the entire democratic process by giving some access to politicians in order to have decisions made that favour the donors. I think this can happen even to someone who is supposedly above all this, such as Clover Moore (my local state MP and Lord Mayor of the council I live in).

By not having information on who is bankrolling candidates in the upcoming NSW state election, it is impossible to know who to vote for. However, sfter reading the article in The Australian this week about Clover and her property money, I certainly won't be voting for her.

But who is best to vote for? We need to know who is bankrolling all candidates before we vote.