Sniggid, I can assure you those of us on the Labor side give exactly as much respect to business, as the Liberals give to employees. Make no mistake, we are as avid in our determination, as you are in yours.

I thought that the very existance of the website "Democracy 4 sale" and that money influenced the electorial system of democracy meant there was no democracy in Australia.
There is no democracy in Australia.
Did not the "Children Overboard" affair prove that.
To debate anonymous donations is being pendantic. The case has already been proved.
There is no democracy . . . and the people don't care.

Sorry, Robb88 i missed your nonsensical comment. Exactly what is dishonest about the article? Your mob is wrecking the very fabric of this country.I expect voluntary voting next.I am sure you and your ilk are all ready to defend that attack on our way of life. Choice they call it. Sniggid and Robb88, is Professor Harper an appropriate person to head up the Fair Pay Commission? Did Costello mislead Parliament,were there children overboard, are there, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the big one,is John Howard an honest man?

Any proposed debate, on any proposed change, regarding political sponsorship and donations, will only serve to corrupt the honesty of public democratic system.

It has been a "Freedom" to monetarily donate to institutes of democracy, policies and common interests and other politically inclined organisational lobbys.

It also provides our Nation with a middle eye and peripheral view to accumulating wealth and common interests of our peers.

I like the line “The party that raises the most money, wins.” Not “has a greater chance of winning” but actually does win. Tell that to American Presidential aspirant Steve Forbes who has spent tens of millions of his late father’s money unsuccessfully trying to gain the support of the people.
Be that as it may, I think there are two sides to this issue. One is that if individuals or corporations suddenly begin to be treated very favourably by the government in power it might be in the public interest to know if there are fiscal reasons why such apparent favouritism exists.
The second is that if we believe in the principle of the secret ballot then does not the principle of the privacy of voting logically extend to the privacy of political support? I believe secret voting was introduced to prevent political intimidation. Is it not reasonable to believe that intimidation works on both a macro as well as a micro scale?
I think a possible solution might be for political parties to be compelled to register all donations with the AEC, but then this database to be made secure. It could then only be opened on court order with regards to selected donors when there is a reasonable suspicion of the government returning favours made to them at election time

Sniggid,
My apologies I missed your contradiction in terms in your firt post "when I was in a union and a Liberal Party supporter" do I read you correctly. You were a member of a union, whose purpose is to better wages and conditions for it's members, and similtaneously you vote for the party who want to force your wages and conditions down, could you please explain to me how that works, sadly I am not a scientist who deals with maschocistic human behaviour, and as a result am unable to understand how these two poles could ever meet.