Graham, the principle of voters (individuals) being able to donate to political parties or campaigns is fine; I am one of millions who do it.

But our opinions diverge re your statement opposing "New South Wales' banning political donations from people involved in the property development, tobacco, liquor or gambling industries."

You go on to say "Criminals can donate, but not citizens in bona fide legal industries which are also huge contributors to state government coffers....."

Corporations (legally defined as 'persons') are unlike individual voters in that they donate much more than individuals and in return they expect (and receive) legislation favoring their commercial interests. The prime examples are repeal of the carbon and mining taxes. These repeals favour corporations but disadvantage the great majority of citizens. In my opinion this is tantamount to bribery by rich and powerful interests and that is a perversion of democracy.

I have been living in the US for several months and the majority progressives I speak to in New York all lament what corporate donations have done to pervert the political system (the Koch Brothers - billionaire fossil fuel magnates - are the most commonly mentioned). Corporations buy their ultra right wing Congressional representatives and State governors, particularly in the rural areas. Cities, where a great majority live are nearly all progressive hence we have President Obama.

Let's NOT go the way of the US. Let's have:
- Donations only from real persons not corporations.
- Maximum limit to donations from any person in any one year (say $3000).
- Immediate publicizing of donations (not 1 year later as it is now)
- No donations from currently convicted criminals (we agree there)

Yes that would mean my preferred party the Greens would not have got their $1m but so be it. A lot more 'bribery of candidates' from Liberal (corporate donations) and Labor (unions) would be prevented.

PS The fact that some corporate donors are huge contributors to state coffers can be seen as a further perversion of real democracy

"If a candidate can't raise funds, then they are probably not worth voting for. It means no one who knows them is prepared to invest money in them. That's a sign you should think twice before investing a vote," says Graham!

So raising lots of money is considered by him to be a necessary virtue for a politician.

Could it be that, as Rose points out, money is destroying our democracy, that by funding politicians, corporations are buying political influence which enables them to make mega-bucks? Shock, horror, could this be true?

But then, making a buck is considered by some to be the epitome of human achievement. How pathetic!

Grahame, have you heard the saying that: Money Is The Root Of All Evil? Have you heard the saying that: every man has his price?

Looking at the Obeids and their ilk convinces me that those who make mega-bucks and those who do their bidding should be precluded from political office, end of story.

Money and greed destroys democracies!

I would suggest the true essence of Democracy is "one person, one vote".
This is about the only equality any of us in today's society can hope for.
The system of Lobbying, and granting access to Representatives according to their financial contributions is more like one dollar one vote.
Currently there is a push by our elected representatives to make virtually all their constituents criminals. Very very people, I would think have not recorded a program from TV or copied a disk or music, yet all these activities are technically illegal.
Yet the Liberal Party, paid by us to represent us is taking the side of the very rich and declaring us all criminals.
To whom does their loyalty belong?
The Australian Pirate Party is (as far as I am aware) the only party with policies directly addressing this egregious affront on Democracy.

Politicians would of course say it is an affront to their integrity to even imply that their votes could be bought through political donations.

In that case they should not object to all donations being directed through an independent body that could anonymise the source and pass the donation on. All audited independently.

However the donors and politicians would never agree to that, but whyever not?

When you combine a Capitalist system with Democracy corruption is the inevitable by-product, human nature guarantees that.
The correct quote is...
"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."
We live in a century and civilisation where the love of money is a fact of life and indeed is heavily promoted, if not forced down our throats.
The combination of that force and the Two-Party system has corrupted our entire democratic system almost beyond repair. That fact is clearly demonstrated by the government punishing and abusing, quite literally, the un-employed and socially challenged while simultaneously spending billions on failed arms programs and launching us into yet another war that has virtually nothing to do with us, costing millions and quite probably seeing young Australians killed and crippled for life.
It simply isn't possible to prevent such corruption, to demonstrate that I offer you B.Hawke, Champion of the Labor movement and Hero to the Worker. He did what no Lib' would have had the nerve to do, he de-regulated the banks, and now he lives as a multi-millionaire in the South of France with directorships and Board seats worth more annually than the rest of us will see in our entire lives.
Coincidence? OF COURSE it is, can you prove otherwise?
The solution? TBH, I don't think there IS one that will work, not until we rid ourselves of the entire Capitalist system, something I believe is long overdue.
We outgrew Kings and Nobles, we outgrew Religious Rule,(well, most of us), we are outgrowing "isms" of all kinds, hopefully, so why not look to replacing the worst "ism" of all, Capitalism?
Honestly, it's the 21st century, surely we can move beyond a system that's killing the planet and enslaving most of the population of that planet?

"Honestly, it's the 21st century, surely we can move beyond a system that's killing the planet and enslaving most of the population of that planet?"

And that is just the point. We cannot go on the way we are expecting with perpetual growth.
It is a finite Planet and there is a limit to what we do to it.
The best way to finance pollies would be to provide a set amount to each that would pay for a reasonable amount of TV adds and print media from the government and to ban all donations from individuals and certainly from corporations.
They by their very obligations under the rules must squeeze every last drop of profit to hand over to shareholders.
I would love to see the end of the Capitalist system and it will come one day but not in my lifetime.

Legislators' dependence on campaign donations
raises serious questions about the behind the
scenes influence of private groups in the
political process. Do we want to be like the
United States?

For example, the American
Medical Association (AMA), which has always
opposed the introduction of a national health-insurance
program, has spent millions of dollars over the years
in supporting candidates who favour its views and
trying to unseat those who do not.

More than two-thirds
of the members of Congress have received funds from this
organisation. Another highly effective interest group
is the National Rifle Association whose lobbying
efforts and campaign donations have helped to kill
various different gun-control bills since the 1960s,
despite opinion polls that consistently show a large
majority of the people in favour of such legislation. The
NRA has donated money to approx. a quarter of Congress.

Do we really want groups, frequently operating in secrecy,
to be able to win favours that might not be in the
public interest - thus reducing the ordinary voter's
influence? Also, how can someone who is not rich and who
refuses to accept large sums of money run for office on
an equal basis against those who accept such donations?

In our current system there is little doubt about the
outcome of a vote in the legislature, because
most legislators "Toe the party line" and are not subject
to much external influence. Therefore if the Australian
Liberal or Labor Party has, say, a 20-seat majority
in Parliament, it can rely on a 20-vote majority -
minus any legislators who are unable to attend - on
virtually any vote. In contrast, the loose nature of
American parties and their lack of internal discipline means
that it would be most unusual for all Republicans or all
Democratic legislators to vote the same way.

Instead, a new and different coalition of congressional votes
has to be assembled on every issue.

The choice is up to us as to where we want the power to lie,
and who we want to make the decisions?

Sorry Graham, BUT COMPLETELY DISAGREE. look at the States, WHERE CANDIDATES NOW SPEND 85% OF THEIR TIME raising funds!
(Democracy for sale!)
And where that time clearly belongs to the electors, who place these people in positions of power and pay their often overly generous salaries!?
Couple that with the passing parade now perambulating through ICAC, (and that's just the "honest ones," and he who must be Obeid?) and government by the people has not only disappeared, but is being bought by the rich and powerful; and or, the patently corrupt!?
[Let the rich and powerful stand and run on their own merit and powers of LEGITIMATE persuasion, (Shock Jocks) if they want a say! It's still a free country!] If they fail, so also does the paid mouthpieces! (Turn off the people at your peril!)
And given how well we seem to be tracking American example, its surely just a matter of time before the rich and powerful, like the Murdoch empire, can seemingly "purchase" effective control?
Imagine what Mr Murdoch would do to OLO, if he had the power to control it (or all social commentary) through this or that speckle fleck, POLITICAL proxy? [New prohibitively expensive licence fees anyone?]
Think Graham, and be careful what you wish for mate!
True democracy will be restored by exclusive taxpayer funding of all political parties, or at least those with a certain critical mass of members and or official support, below which they would receive no public funding?
And arguably the best way along with optional preferencing, to keep the regressive ratbag (totally ignorant) element out of parliament!?
The rich and powerful can contribute as taxpayers, rather than as present, as evidenced by the hacking scandals, as Government manipulating (power purchasing?) tax avoiders?
Rhrosty.

< And it's certainly anti-democratic to take the money from all of us, by force, through the tax system >

Graham, this is surely the MOST democratic way of funding political parties and candidates.

The most important point here is to keep the funding as NEUTRAL as possible.

The great problem with donations is that they are not neutral. The ‘right’ most definitely has much more wherewithal to give big donations, which can very significantly sway the overall political direction.

We desperately need to be heading towards a sustainable society, which is seen as a ‘left’ philosophy. Meanwhile, those who give the vast majority of big donations are of a quite opposite mindset – one of continuous rapid expansionism.

Our governments, at all three levels, are very largely in the pockets of the big business fraternity.

One of the biggest priorities has surely got to be to break this in-bed relationship and make government as independent as possible.

I think that the Gillard government would have been MUCH more sustainability-oriented if they could have been.

Julia Gillard said right at the start of her Prime-Ministership that she believes in a sustainable Australia, not a big Australia. But we then never heard her mention anything of the sort ever again!

She and her government were simply powerless to head more in this direction, because of the enormous power of the vested-interest profit-driven big-business fraternity. The donations regime is a very large part of this.

So what we really need is an analysis of where political donations have come from over say the last decade and to then implement a PPCL (political parties and candidates levee) based on this, whereby we all pay an amount equivalent to about the average for donations from each sector – big business, small business, other organisations and individuals.

Just as we are all compelled to pay taxes, we should be compelled to pay this sort of a levee.

There is nothing undemocratic about it.

Indeed, a donations regime of any sort could be considered to be fundamentally undemocratic.

Graham is right that donations to politicians should be allowed. This will prevent all politicians coming from the independently wealthy (a la Palmer). But donations should be fully publised and social media websites makes such transparency achievable.

Other Buts are:

Bribes-donations to politicians are not equivalent to Bribes-donations to officials or others because politicians can frequently evade legal sanction in part due to politician's formal role in making laws. This is demonstrated in the very low and lengthy prosecution rate for corrupt politicians.

Where Graham argues "As anyone who has donated to a church, surf club, charity or community organisation knows, Australians routinely give sometimes quite large sums altruistically."

The competition between voter's power vs monied interest donation power is the difference. Churches, surf-clubs or other organisations do not wield influence over everyone like politicians do.

Pete

It does not take training in the academic arcana of spivmanship (aka economics) to figure out the basic facts of wealth creation. Wealth consists of goods and services. Nothing else. Wealth is created by labour and the bounty of nature. Nothing else. Creating wealth is the function of MAKERS; drawing profits (wealth) from what the makers create is TAKING. The substantial fortunes amassed by the “wealthy” - Forbes’ lists, the 1%, the ultimate owners of the political parties and thereby of the politicians - are derived from acquiring wealth created by the makers while not personally creating any wealth at all. This superenrichment process is known as “making good” though a less flattering and more truthful name is theft. From the mere street gang boss to the 1%, this process of theft is accompanied by a self-righteous sense of entitlement. On behalf of his sponsors, Mr Hockey oozed it on 7.30 last night. In a rational economic system the takers would be left with no opportunity other than to serve the rest of the public as makers.

But how do they get away with it? A decisive weapon in their armoury is corporate political donations, otherwise known as corruption or bribery. Nothing so crude as direct corruption of individuals. No Obeid or Slipper scandals. The bribery is LEVERAGED. MPs are paid massively in inflated salaries and allowances, extending even beyond their time in parliament, FROM THE PUBLIC PURSE. This requires corporate donations to keep their parties winning seats at elections. Party discipline (shape up or ship out, Mr Turnbull), makes sure the donors receive what they pay for.

Of course not all pollies are corrupt. Some are independent. Different parties require different bribery levels and some parties make do on what they can raise honestly. Electoral laws can be adjusted to reduce the power of party apparatchiks. There’s a long way to go. Even better - binding citizen-initiated referenda (watch the complicit pundits freak out at THAT suggestion!).

Wow Graham, I did not realise you were suicidal. To post this article here I can only assume you are. The attacks have been much as I expected.

I'm a fence sitter on this one. I can see both sides of the question too well to have a preferred position.

I do see that honesty doesn't draw many brownie points for those of the right who practice it. I have not heard any praise for Newman & co in refusing to give Palmer, their long time large donor his bucket list. It appeared they gave him nothing.

In fact we saw the Greens particularly, & Labor welcome Palmer, a coal miner of all things, into the fold. Talk about the enemy of my enemy stuff.

The Greens came out of the episode stinking like week old prawn heads, but we have seen previously, there is very little ethical in that lot, despite the posturing on donations.

I see under the table envelopes as the real problem. Rather than a large party donation, it is often only a couple of councilors, MLAs or bureaucrats who have to be greased to swing a deal.

At the same time, I'm sure just as much money has been passed to greens & aboriginal communities to oppose legitimate projects. The Hindmarsh Island bridge fiasco is one where it is obvious that influence & or money reached as high as the national senate.

ideological sophistry.

Still, surely you can see the flaws in your rationalising, Graham ..?

..perhaps not

Political donations corrupt democracy in ways you might not realise
· Warwick Smith 11 September 2014
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/11/political-donations-corrupt-democracy-in-ways-you-might-not-realise
Corporations don’t give their money away for nothing. There is an understanding (rarely made explicit) that large campaign donations buy political access and favourable consideration in policy development and legislation. Why else would a corporation, which is bound by law to pursue profits, make these donations?
Interestingly, many businesses give money to both sides of the narrow political divide; sometimes different amounts, sometimes exactly the same amount.
When both major parties have the same policy on an issue, it effectively removes that issue from democratic scrutiny. This is the aim of many political donations from businesses who stand to lose from policy changes that would be popular with the electorate.
Donating equally to both sides is clearly not about helping one side win. It’s an implied threat: “if you don’t treat us well we’ll give you less and they’ll be ahead

Not suicidal at all Hasbeen. What would be suicidal would be to sit back and allow the Green Left to stop legitimate fundraising so as to advantage their own side of the argument. It is significant that when it comes to "money politics" they never mention the elephant in the room which is how the unions, many of which are corrupt through and through and run by tiny cabals, own the major left-wing party in Australia via their donations.

Unlike corporate donors who generally only come in to support policies that have already been decided, the unions get the majority of votes in the Labor Party and determine policy in advance. The corrupt Gillard government abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission just so as the CFMEU, one of its major financial backers, could have its head. We're seeing the sort of organisation it is in the Royal Commission at the moment.

The idea that people running for office should just receive only money doled out by the government is ridiculous. That isn't democracy in any way shape or form and would turn politicians into functionaries. It would make it harder to fund campaigns to counter institutionalised bias like that present in the ABC and other media. And it would do nothing to stop people forming front organisations. Rather than increasing transparency it would decrease it and increase the amount of illegality, just as prohibition has always done.

G, when you make statements such as "corporate donors who generally only come in to support policies that have already been decided," and others like "The corrupt Gillard government.." and " institutionalised bias like that present in the ABC" you immediately lose almost all credibility, that sort of irrational spin is a hallmark of the Canetoad and his supporters and adds little of worth to any discussion, IMO.

How Graham can literally equate democracy with elitism, with the disproportionate money and influence wielded by cashed-up corporate interests, so as to secure their cynical interests (profit and the status quo), is beyond me.
Neoliberalism sees democracy not as the point of it all, but as an obstacle--a nuisance to be bought.

Capitalist Corporations, besides destroying and raping our fragile planet, are bigtime supporters of war too. Yeah, there's lots of loot in making the weapons of war and the munitions especially if it's combined with rabid imperialism as in America.

The canetoad who is our current Prime Minister couldn't wait to send the troops off on their bloody mission in the Middle East. He got plenty of television grabs and people seem to have forgotten the farce called the budget.

Yeah, capitalism, greed and liberal politics go hand-in-hand. They ensure the 1% accrue most of the wealth while the proles go off to die in foreign countries so that the oligarchs can sleep well each night in their mansions.

But could it be that the proles are getting sick of being exploited by the insatiably greedy and paltry politicians? Australia might have a Revolution like the French did.

Bring on the tumbrils, I say!

'The canetoad who is our current Prime Minister couldn't wait to send the troops off on their bloody mission in the Middle East. He got plenty of television grabs and people seem to have forgotten the farce called the budget.

don't judge everyone by your own warped standards David G. Not everyone is as sick as u think.

I am.

So am I.

Hasbeen,

"Wow Graham, I did not realise you were suicidal. To post this article here I can only assume you are. The attacks have been much as I expected.

I'm a fence sitter on this one. I can see both sides of the question too well to have a preferred position."

For anyone who's interested, here's the debate:

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA20091201043?Open&refNavID=HA8_1

"Election Funding and Disclosures Amendment (Property Developers Prohibition) Bill 2009"

Money Is The Root Of All Evil? Have you heard the saying that: every man has his price?
David G,
People who want money badly are the root of much evil, the rest are insipid religious morons.
Every man must have a price if he wants to be of some value.

our current Prime Minister couldn't wait to send the troops off on their bloody mission in the Middle East.
What is your alternative ? wait till the Middle eastern evil gets a greater foothold in Australia than it already has thanks to the likes of you ? You don't sound like someone who'd have the Gonads to stand up for anyone. You are part of the enemy from within.

Put me in office, give me regular 'donations', pay for my house and renovations, buy me a car and give me tickets to the footy and cricket, plus not to mention all the shows and first class seats.

Kiss my butt and I'll introduce legislation that will benefit you.

Not every politician would be so up front.

Wonder if this how google, apple et al get away without paying tax?

G'Day Bruce, you go on to criticise Hawke for being corrupt on a slimmer basis of fact than I have, but criticise me for levelling criticism at Gillard.

I make my claim on the basis that Gillard abolished a commission that was exposing corruption in a building union which is a major contributor to the Labor Party. That is corrupt behaviour. She has form. She supported the crook Craig Thompson until it was completely untenable for her to do so. It is exactly the same behaviour. Protect the crook because they are a supporter. Modern Labor has become a virus in the political system.

You'll note that when there are serious questions about people on the Liberal side that they are stood aside and investigated. We actually care about what people do more than who they support.

One man (person) one vote is a pretty good slogan. It is undermined when a rich person or corporation can, in effect, buy votes—or politicians. Our taxes fund roads and parliament buildings: it is reasonable that they also fund the political process through those curious corporations we call political parties. Better such transparent, limited funding than the present practice, where we are approaching the situation of having the best politicians money can buy.

You're confused Asclepius. Rich people only get one vote. If you're worried about people having more influence than other people, then perhaps you should ban politicians from talking to anyone, and disband political parties as well. Because the people they listen to have more influence than anyone else.

You are not confused, Asclepius. You have stated the truth. In a capitalist society where greed-motivated Media Barons control the press, votes are bought prior to every election.

Look at our current Government. It is nothing more than a collection of mediocre self-seekers who serve the capitalists while they exploit those on the bottom of the economic pile. Its leader is an intellectual joke, a bizarre parody of a Prime Minister.

We in Australia, are going the same way as the imperial U.S. which is trying to gain control of the world by military means.

If that happens, god help us all!

David G,

"We in Australia, are going the same way as the imperial U.S. which is trying to gain control of the world by military means."

Lol!....I think in our case it's called "jumping on the bandwagon"...especially useful if you're trying to divert attention from govt debacle.

Its other title is "Look over there".

I believe it's all got a little out of control with the advent of "this" govt.

With the assistance of partisan media they appear to have been elected on a platform that bears almost no resemblance to their post election agenda....almost the polar opposite in fact.

What does that do for democracy?

So which would you consider more 'Democratic' Graham: a candidate impressing one donor for a million dollar donation, or a candidate impressing a million donors for one dollar donations?
There seems to be a red herring being waved here. To the question “are political donations vital for democracy” I would say yes. The real question is, how much and why should they be anonymous? The current system has locked us into an adversarial, 2 party system; the unions on one side and big business on the other, as the 2 opposing groups most capable of making large donations.
Sadly, neither group is now representative of the largest majority of people. The quiet majority of working/middle class people no longer belong to unions, and they certainly don't belong to the wealthy elite.
Who can represent this majority, when the smaller parties can't compete with the big money donors?
Australia -and indeed every Democratic country- would be better served if their Representatives were actually representative, and not beholden to their financial benefactors.

Take for example why is Christopher Pyne trying to get University fees deregulated?

It has nothing to do with education and more to do with making a very few people lots and lots of money.

I second this. It tells it like it is. Well done.

So which would you consider more 'Democratic' Graham: a candidate impressing one donor for a million dollar donation, or a candidate impressing a million donors for one dollar donations?
There seems to be a red herring being waved here. To the question “are political donations vital for democracy” I would say yes. The real question is, how much and why should they be anonymous? The current system has locked us into an adversarial, 2 party system; the unions on one side and big business on the other, as the 2 opposing groups most capable of making large donations.
Sadly, neither group is now representative of the largest majority of people. The quiet majority of working/middle class people no longer belong to unions, and they certainly don't belong to the wealthy elite.
Who can represent this majority, when the smaller parties can't compete with the big money donors?
Australia -and indeed every Democratic country- would be better served if their Representatives were actually representative, and not beholden to their financial benefactors.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 21 September 2014 9:40:42 AM

Hello everyone,
Democracy hey... It's certainly not perfect but its the best system we've got.
I could sometimes criticise democracy in that the rights of the 49% can be taken away by the other 51% at any time.
I could say that instead of banning political donations we instead ban political parties and force individuals to stand as candidates simply on their own merits.
I could say that ones ability to generate campaign contributions and donations should itself be an entirely different matter than the business of running a country fairly.
I could ask if democracy actually exists at all when parties come out with ridiculous ideas like taking peoples dormant bank accounts after a few years (I couldn't see 1% of the citizens of any nation agreeing that's a good idea).
I could say that the two-party preferred system is like a feces sandwich where the only real choice is choosing which half of the feces sandwich you would like to eat.
And I might be being a little ignorant in saying that political donations and lobbyists have the potential to sway political opinion towards a particular cause and not serve the general population fairly but this is generally how I see it.
But after being critical of democracy all I can really do is repeat what I said at the beginning of this post which is that democracy certainly isn't perfect but its the best system we've got.
The real question worth asking is can we make it better?
- Scott