The incumbent parties do get more funding than the opposition in State and Federal levels. On the Federal level, the funding is scaled on the number of seats won on the previous election. On the State level, it is scaled on the percentage of votes won in the election in NSW. The State system is more friendly to the minor parties that have fewer seats, yet may have higher percentages of over-all votes.

It is true that the sleaze factor in funding the parties is a problem. It could be an idea to ban any company donation to the Government in election as it is in a process of a contract with them. Funding that party, at election time, so that any possible conflict of interest with the other political parties that threaten their contract, is corrupting democracy.

Foreign owned companies should be banned from donating money to parties for elections.

Also tobacco companies and casinos should be banned from donating money to political parties for elections as they have a set interests in deregulating sales and consumption.

Tobacco companies foreign companies and casinos are funding the major parties already. The interests of those that fund the two political parties may not be in the best interests of ordinary Australians. This is cause for more standards and rules in overall funding to be more regulated.

It is interesting to see that the discussion has got around to that of the public funding of political parties, after having also ranged over the issue of prohibition of private and corporate donation to political parties.

Could it be that public funding has been advanced not so much as a counter to, or substitute for, corporate donation, but because there has been progressively less willingness of private and corporate donors to donate in support of political party structures? Could it be that, far from private and corporate donations buying favorable treatment and policy, the reverse is true; that donors are few and far between and that political party machine functionaries actively seek to avoid the chore of fund raising? Could it be that the effectiveness of political advertising and publicity has far less effect on electors than it has been credited with over the years?

It was revealing to see the undisguised glee with which the initial conviction of Pauline Hanson was greeted by both Peter Beattie and the AEC. It wasn't sufficient that the public funding that had been allegedly improperly claimed had been repaid into consolidated revenue from private subscription long before the verdict, or even the trial. They wanted payback! Pauline Hanson (and other One Nation candidates) had attracted a significant number of primary votes, votes that constituted the basis upon which public funding of political parties is assessed. Pauline Hanson's very presence in that electoral context with the associated claim for public funding, whether intendedly improper or resulting from an honest misunderstanding of the law, had deprived one of the major political parties of a significant part of 'their' public funding! It was plain straight dog-in-the-manger stuff! The fact that the Queensland taxpayers were saved around a million dollars through the privately subscribed repayment of the funding didn't even rate a mention.

If once the only legitimate source of funding for political parties becomes public funding, then kiss goodbye to any semblance of accountability to the public by party functionaries and representatives.

You could have a point there Forrest, particularly for the Independents. I sometimes wonder if Pauline Hanson was hijacked by those fiddling-the-till in her own party.

Incumbent parties always have the advantage of funding firstly as funding is scaled from previous elections.

Funding from the AEC is not at question here.

The problem is when the incumbent Government, state or Federal, launch bogus campaigns, just before election time, using all departmental funding, as well as AEC funding. This could be seen as misappropriation of taxpayers' money.

Even the NSW ALP Government is into it now with its "future strategy" campaign. That funding is not from the AEC for elections. The opposition and minor parties do not have the same perks from taxpayers.

Yes, it is true, both the ALP and Liberal Parties do accept funding from tobacco companies and other multi-national corporations. The minor parties and independents don't.

Crikey Saintfletcher you are threatening to cut off the revenue stream of country commercial television stations if you restrict political advertising by the incumbent party. Often 80% of the advertising in prime time viewing is from the state and federal government and you can bet they pay full price for their advertising spots.

Of course the party in power would argue that the advertisements are really public information projects like "Wipe Off 5" to reduce speeding on our roads or "Everyone will be better off under Work Choices" which has proved patently not to be the case. It's hard to argue against advertisements encouraging you stop speeding, protect yourself from skin cancer, or save water but other advertisements are more contentious and less apolitical yet they are still funded by the grateful taxpayer of all persuasions.

It's also niave to assume that political advertisements only appear in the election campaign. Sure their intensity increases in the lead up to an election but the political lobby groups are moulding public opinion to shift Australia from a democracy that believed in a Fair Go For All meaning that Australians looked after the underdogs to a society that looks after itself and ignore the people unable to look after themselves like children.