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.