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.