A silly question? (I had many exlamation marks folowing this and heve removed tham by request they were meanigless gramatically similar to the relation democracy and politics.)
Why have any contributions to aid election of politicians? Because some see America as the epitome of democratic capitalism, honest and truly representing the electorate or because it is needed?
Cannot the ranks of those who govern, in a democracy, do the electoral will, be selected without extra money That Is money over and above the allowances at present. If these are inadequate then examine why. Is a propaganda campaign funding the advertisers needed as in America putting the chances of election out of reach of most people? Why the expense why lift a new skill, pleading for funds, above the needs ofbeing a politician? If the elected candidate proves a dud as I am sure the media will inform us then throw him out. Rather like the less than useful worker!
Why is the media paid to do what is one of the jobs, responsibilities , that out of date word, to inform the electorate? The rest is special pleading for the electorate has an equivalent responsibility to inform itself. However much your suggestion may make the process more honest and transparent do we need particular patronage or the idea that such can be bought?

“Why have any contributions to aid election of politicians?”

Indeed. ANY political donations will carry connotations of favours and bias. Whichever party offers the most concessions to big business will receive the biggest donations. The level of financial backing and hence ability to get one’s message across effectively is thus strongly biased towards those who facilitate the profit motive above all else.

The biggest and most powerful player can afford to give the biggest donations. This creates an enormous bias in favour of continuous growth, aggressive economic activity… and away from sustainability.

There is an absolute imperative to divorce government from big business and make government a balanced decision-making authority.

The very notion of political donations is at odds with democracy. Political donations should simply be made illegal. Revenue for elections should come out of our tax base and should be equal for all candidates and proportional for all parties depending on the number of candidates they are running.

Ludwig, you write:
"There is an absolute imperative to divorce government from big business and make government a balanced decision-making authority."

I assume this means unions also as they contribute millions each year to political parties, either directly or indirectly through advertising campaigns

Our local council was sacked, months after the election as electoral returns revealed over $500,000 of donations to councillors. Some councillors accepted $20,000+ in donations and contributed zilch to their election campaign. Administrators appointed. Page 3 of the local paper reports today that developers had formed a "war cabinet" to fight appointed Administrator's decisions. The logical conclusion is developers didn't get what they paid for. Proposed increase in the threshold for reporting of compulsory political donations is designed to protect the donors, not the voters.

Hijacked

I would love to see a ban on all pre-election electronic media advertising. It solves a lot of things in terms of money spent and the questionable influential power of tv. Could be equal for both sides hence potentially agreeable. Wishful thinking?

'Dusting off ancient case law appears to be the best solution to this vexed issue threatening public confidence in the political process'.

The problem with case law is that it is easily overborne by statute. The parliaments where our profligate politicians do their collective worst are the places where statutes are already promulgated by the tome (sorry, "tonne") so our busily beavering friends in high office will no doubt just pass a (retrospective) law exempting themselves from any fiduciary responsibility the courts might be tempted to impose on them.

Ethics, probity and informed debate are now all but lost to our Australian parliaments. The current federal government, particularly, has made a mockery of the Westminster system of accountabilities but the states have been quick to learn from it.

Parliaments are beyond self-redemption. The courts can't do it for them. The only answer therefore lies, as it always does in the end, with the people.

When will *they* speak?

Kaz