Like you Max, I don't believe directors/union bosses have any inherent right to donate member's/shareholder's funds to political parties; and tantamount to emulating a petty criminal pickpocket?

Of course there's an elementary reason to secretly donate large sums!

Patently purchased influence and corrupt outcomes?

And then we wonder why it's virtually impossible to decarb our economy, seriously reform the tax system, or provide real freedom of information?

For mine, election funding should be provided by the taxpayer and or, completely transparent crowd funding, with the public broadcaster supplying all the required air time for registered parties to air their ideas and policy objectives/accountability, alway providing it was done town hall style, with members of the public able to ask politely put pertinent questions. Q+A style?

Like, where is the funding coming from for that; or is that part of the core functions of that tier of government; and why the delay, given a decade of delay doubles the capital outlay imperatives of infrastructure and so on?

And a perfectly reasonable condition for requiring the public to provide all election funding?
Rhrosty.

Rhosty,

I suppose by the same logic that you would oppose businesses and unions donating money to charities?

It must have been difficult to write an article about Gaming the political System without hammering the ugly deals by (extreme minority) Independents to boost several into the Senate. But the author succeeded.

Turnbull's likely Double Dissolution Election will be all about turfing out those Gaming Independents.

Shadow minister:

I've always thought of charities and political parties, as two very different animals, and no there's no similar rationale, for ostensibly treating either by the same rules or logic!

One as charity,or good Samaritan; and the other a power grasping at almost any cost, political party! Surely you realized that? Or maybe not, given the tenor of your Question?
Rhrosty.

I know it will never happen while we fools keep voting for same poor quality, self-serving politicians, but there should be NO donations allowed from anyone or anything to politcal parties or individual politicians. They want in, they pay.

Plantaganet - good one!

If agree with Rhosty that the case for public funding is compelling, and am sympathetic to Plantagenet’s view that private donations should be ruled out - or perhaps capped at a low (say $100) level. Unlimited donations should be possible if philanthropic corporations wish to contribute to a fund to be disbursed among all parties according to the criteria used for government funding.

It would be good to see more articles on this topic, as well as the arguments against, so the reading public can get a better understanding of this complex issue.

I do, however, have one concern. I believe the principle behind public funding should be to provide sufficient money to ensure the public is aware of the policies of parties and members, as well as their reasons for supporting these and rejecting the views of other parties, if they wish to put this on record. It should also encourage members to address public meetings and answer criticisms from the floor.

Public funds should not, however, be used to pay for advocacy of these views, or their endless repetition in advertising campaigns designed to arouse public passions. More particularly, it should not be used to fund campaigns based on slurs and slanders of competing candidates.

Max Atkinson