I thought that the media hype over the conviction of former Queensland Minister Gordon Nuttall last week would have brought into question the regime of political donations and the obvious connotations of favour-buying and corruption inherent therein. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2925

But apart from the odd mention in some behind-the-news analyses, it hasn’t gone anywhere. It seems that the cosy relationship between big business and government is as strong and as secure as ever.

Numerous times on this forum I have expressed my abject disgust at this enormous and blatant corruption, which really does mean that our country is governed with the vested interests of big business very prominently placed in the psyche of our decision-makers.

This sits at stark odds with the basic responsibility of government to direct us towards a sustainable future.

Mark O’Connor, author of ‘Overloading Australia’, had something to say about this in a speech he gave a few days ago - http://www.population.org.au/. Move forward to the 27th minute (and then listen to his whole excellent presentation).

To quote him;

“It is illegal to give your shareholders’ money to a political party if you do it out of political enthusiasm. That’s a misuse of the shareholders’ money. It is only legal to do it if you’re getting something back in return. If you are getting decisions out of government in favour of your company that you could not have got by making reasonable representations to the government, then it’s not illegal. But then it’s a bribe isn’t it? Oh no because you are only giving it to the whole party, not to an individual politician!”

So how do we escape this incredible trap whereby political parties are largely beholden to, or at least very strongly swayed by, the wishes of the business lobby? How do we abolish donations and implement neutral funding for political parties? How do we make government accountable and unbiased…and be seen to be so?

I've heard that in Canada, all political parties are funded from the Public purse and private donations are illegal.

Oops, I should have checked first.

Individuals can contribute a maximum amount per calendar year but corporations, unions and organizations can't contribute at all.

http://canadaonline.about.com/od/federalelections/a/contributions.htm

Very good Wobbles.

Canada has a ban on contributions from corporations, unions and organisations to parties and candidates.

Yep, it is all just sooo easy and simple. They saw the need to abolish this donations regime and the terrible bias or perception of bias that went with it. And they actually managed to do it…..which is quite amazing, given the enormous vested interest that government has in receiving big donations.

Good on them.

If they can do it, Australia can do it.

So now it is up to Rudd to follow suit. And quickly.

I am absolutely against corruption, particularly when it is targetted at influencing government action for the benefit of individuals or corporations.

Having said that, I am also fundamentally against the concept of taxpayers wearing the costs of running political parties.

The tax I pay will inevitably be used to fund parties whose policies I find abhorrent. Where's the fairness in that?

Thomas Jefferson said, and I agree with him, that "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Canada expends around $20 million a year in this manner, year in, year out. It goes to "political parties". who attract a motley crew of hangers-on to milk the public teat without producing anything of value.

Is that what we want?

I would prefer to see the problem addressed from the opposite angle.

Where someone is found guilty of corruption - bunging for favours is as much corruption as accepting the bung - they should expect significant jail time, rather than the slap-on-the-wrist that passes for punishment these days.

Sharpening up the law to eliminate any grey areas should be the priority, rather than find yet another offensive way in which to spray around my hard-earned dollars.

Jefferson also said:

"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

"Working" for a political party is not a form of work that deserves payment. A better approach would be to forbid political parties from paying wages at all.

They wouldn't then need much by way of financial support at all, thus removing the need for "party donations", and exposing all contributions as personal bribery.

“Yep, it is all just sooo easy and simple”

Huh? Did I write that? I think that should have been something like; ‘Ýes, it is all very simple, at least in theory’ !

.
Pericles, you wrote;

“Having said that, I am also fundamentally against the concept of taxpayers wearing the costs of running political parties.”

Well, what are the alternatives?

Of course I am disgusted at having my tax dollar used for purposes that I profoundly disagree with.

But perhaps if political parties were entirely funded from the public purse, there would be a chance…just a chance…that they’d come to govern this country in a half-decent manner….and use my tax dollar much more wisely.

Besides, the average taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay any extra. Maybe we should just basically restructure monies currently given as loans into a tax. Afterall, if so many big companies can afford to give big donations, then they can obviously afford to pay the same amount in increased taxes!

“I would prefer to see the problem addressed from the opposite angle. Where someone is found guilty of corruption - bunging for favours is as much corruption as accepting the bung - they should expect significant jail time…”

But all donations and favours are corrupt, because the donors absolutely do it with the intention of swaying decisions in their favour…not by reasoned argument, but by bribery. Your suggestion wouldn’t even be tinkering around the edges of the problem, it would just be straightening up the proverbial deck chairs a little. Or am I misunderstanding you?

“Sharpening up the law to eliminate any grey areas should be the priority…”

For sure! Well, certainly one of the priorities.

“ ‘Working’ for a political party is not a form of work that deserves payment”

Eh?? I can’t agree with that.

Yes Canada has done it, and what's been the result regarding business influence on government? Absolutely nothing! Government there is JUST as beholden to business interests as it ever was.

Likewise, changing funding sources in Australia will change only ONE thing - - - "funding sources".

Since I've been on this forum over the past month or so I've noticed the people here are no different from people anywhere. They "THINK" that "THEIR" political answers are "THE" answers, and if anyone disagrees then they're wrong: Regardless of whether they're lefties, righties or in the middle.

Political discussions are a pointless exercise in futility.

Once we get rid of all politics in life, we'd all come to the vitally important realisation, in fact the only one that's necessary, that Rugby Union is superior to Thugby League. And "THAT'S" the last word!

“Yes Canada has done it, and what's been the result regarding business influence on government? Absolutely nothing! Government there is JUST as beholden to business interests as it ever was.”

I suspect you are right Master. But can you provide anything to support this assertion?

Incidentally, I would love to get your response to my comments on another thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2899#67128

Considering that labor is largely funded from union coffers as well, this should also be restricted.

Rudd is unlikely to cut off their funding supply unless there is a huge public outcry.

Considering that labor politicians generally require a sizeable donation before granting an audience, I think there is more chance of Rudd giving birth.

I believe that the acceptance of any donation by any party or politician is wrong. I also believe that any form of political lobbying is wrong.

Both of these corrrupt practices will always be wrong when all the rest of us get is one vote every 3 or 4 years, and that's that.

Donations and lobbying means that a small group or individuals can have things they way they want them when what they want is not in the best interests of most Australlians.

Australia has no business talking about corruption in undeveloped countries while we allow polticial donations and lobbying to continue.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with political donations or lobbying. In fact, both activities are very much a part of a FREE SOCIETY. Do you realise that firms don't just donate to political parties? They donate to a plethora of different groups, organisations, charities, individuals etc etc etc. Last decade my nephew did the books for one of Australia's largest companies. It was a company well and truly criticised for it's donations to the various political parties. My nephew told me the donations to political parties were DWARFED by the many donations to other causes. Some companies believe it's their role to support the democratic process via donations to the political parties, and it's rarely done for any other reason. The continuation of democracy and freedom is in the companies' interests. It's the EASIEST THING IN THE WORLD to be an armchair critic and ASSUME that all political donations are given for ONLY corrupt reasons.

ANYONE can "lobby", as can any group. That's part of the democratic process. It's integral to FREEDOM. God help Australia if mere "lobbying" is ever banned - - - we'd end up like the old Soviet Union or the current North Korea. * * LONG LIVE FREEDOM * *.

“I believe that the acceptance of any donation by any party or politician is wrong.”

I certainly agree with that Leigh.

“I also believe that any form of political lobbying is wrong.”

But isn’t it everyone’s right to take an issue to their local member, at any of the three levels of government, and expect it to be duly considered? Isn’t it a fundamental right to have one’s concerns heard?

I don’t have any problem with big business lobbying government for just as long as those with opposing viewpoints, which usually come from small community groups or individuals with vastly less financial backing to get their message across, are given equal opportunity.

You could also argue that opinion pieces in newspapers, letters to the editor and views expressed on forums like OLO are all forms of political lobbying.

I think that we need to be able to lobby, and to have confidence that our message has at least reached those at the relevant decision-making level, whether it be local, state or federal government.

Master, you wrote:

“Some companies believe it's their role to support the democratic process via donations to the political parties, and it's rarely done for any other reason. The continuation of democracy and freedom is in the companies' interests.”

What an enormous steaming pile of horse poo!! !!

“It’s the EASIEST THING IN THE WORLD to be an armchair critic and ASSUME that all political donations are given for ONLY corrupt reasons.”

It’s not a matter of just assuming this, it’s a matter of looking at the policies that successive governments have had, at all levels of government, which so strongly fly in the face of sustainability and other aspects of environmentalism, and which just happen to be right in line with what big business wants, and over which those successive governments have been extremely tight-lipped when it comes to explaining their actions.

“ANYONE can ‘lobby’ as can any group. That's part of the democratic process. It's integral to FREEDOM”

Yes! At least we agree on something!

The big problem with lobbying is that it's not always "equal". But that's the nature of the system we have. At least any citizen has the right to try. If you're poor, or don't have the "connections", your task will be immensely harder. But the chance to lobby political parties is a very basic aspect of our free society. The rich and the poor, the organised and disorganised, the political and non-political and the powerful and powerless "ALL" justly have the right to lobby political parties.

Al Capone used to say:

"You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."

Like wise You can get much farther with a lobby and a donation than you can with a lobby alone.

Where is the line in the sand where political support becomes corruption.

We have seen too many instances where the line has been crossed.

Ludwig, I strongly agree, and with Leigh, which has to be a first.
We must adopt the Canadian system, if only for the "Peter Principle".
Just because I person is good at one job, doesn't necessarily mean he/she will be good at the next job up the ladder.
The American system seems to reward those who are best at raising campaign funds, rather than those who would make good Presidents.
Obama seems like a man who would or could make a good President, but is it only me who feels he doesn't seem to be able to do all the things he would like to do?
As for Tax payers having to pay for campaigns they disagree with... Huh?
Almost half the voters after every election have to put up with a government they didn't vote for.
I'm reminded of Voltaire:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I don't know if I would fight to the death for the right of (say) Pauline Hanson to speak, but I don't think a tiny tax burden is unreasonable.

In some countries it is called a bribe but in Australia it is called a political donation. Maybe if we used the bribary word more people would be in favour of a change.

Dou you remember UK labours who sold alla una alla tre the titles?
More money you pay to governing party higher title you take! knight, sir or lord! If you was a drug or weapon dealer or women traficer and pay more money you could become the lord of the lords!
Do you remember Benito Kraxy? the Italian Socialist leader who run to Lybia to avoid the prison in Italy for corruption? Mama mia he was big mafia! Not simply corrupted!
Do you know how many millions of Euro took the cinservative and socialist party in Greece from the Multinational Siemens? AYTOI KAI AN HTAN KLEFTES! They was not simple corrupted!
I was a member from the socialist youth committee in Cyprus and one Sunday asked us to put posters for the GREEN REVOLUTION OF...KANTAFI! (LYBIA LEADER) The worst of all after little arrived a man from the Lybian Embasy to inspect our work! This was not simple corruption , this was a shamefull corruption!
One time I suggested to general secretariat (top exucative body) of the Union to take a state organization to the court because it used tricks to avoid to pay labours rights. They regected and I ignored their deceision and I decided ,( as disctrict secretary of the union)to take this organizasion to court, I won very easy! Later I learned that this organization did not pay the labours but was paying the Unions, and supported employers!
Today the political parties have huge expences, rents, staff, ads, leaflets etc and even more expences for the elections campaigns, who pay all this money? Corporations of cause! For nothing? WHAT? DO NOT BE SILY!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

Dear Ludwig,

I am a citizen of both Australia and the United States. In the United States party discipline is not as rigid as it is in Australia so the legislator is freer to depart from the party line. Due to this US political contributions are more liable to be directed to the individual politicians than the party. In Australia contribution are more likely to be directed to the party.

In Australia the corruption is wholesale. In the US the corruption is retail.

Interesting David. So does this mean that the Yanks have a much more tolerant view of donations or favours given to individual pollies than Ozzies do? Is it actually acceptable over there or is it all completely underhanded?

Do you think that as the result of this diference in the donations regime that the US government is significantly less biased towards big business and hence more able to make sensible sustainability-oriented decisions? Or are they still just as tied to their big biz buddies as we are?

Ludwig
The political parties lost their contact with their society, the lost citizens lost their influence and contact with the political parties, the distance between citizens and political parties is growing rapidly.
For mass majority politician means a corrupted, an hypocrity, a dishonest person.
Politicians are not any more the leaders for changes, for improvments, for justice and democracy. Most politicians are position hunters, are interested only for their own goals and interests, the people arount them are worst, the coruption in political parties is THE RULE, not the exeption.
The main two political parties in each country are fully corupted, Corporation play more important role in political parties than thousands of members, in politics win the party, the politician with the most money!
Pay money to find citizens sensitivities, what they want, pay money to find the best way to promote your policies according to people's sensitivities, pay money for the offices, for the right employees,pay money, milions for the ads, for the mass media. YOU ARE THE WINER! The real fighters desappeared! Small parties, poor politicians try to fight the tanks with arrows! No chance to win, they will remain weak for ever or they will start to hand the easy money, the dirty money.
There is a very small probability the honest, fair, sensitive citizens to return to political parties ONLY IF THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A VOICE IN THE PARTIES, ONLY IF THEY KNOW THAT THAY CAN THROW THE POLITICIAN LEADERS, AT ANY TIME, TO THE RUBISH BIN!
At the moment the political system in west countries is corupted and our democracy the best way to violate democratic principles and democratic values.
THE POLITICAL DONATION IS THE DRIVING FORCE FOR THE CORUPTION OF OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM, THE DRIVING FORCE FOR AN ENDLESS VIOLATION OF OUR DEMOCRATIC VALUES, THE DRIVING FORCE FOR THE CREATION OF A CORRUPTED, INHUMAN SOCIETY.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

I say let's, as a society, expose corrupt, lazy or wasteful practices wherever we see them.

Antonios,

For every corrupt individual out there, there's another that can't stand the practice and yet another that's prepared to shine the spotlight on it. Thank goodness for the investigative media in all its forms.

Headline from yesterday’s Courier Mail:

‘ALP caught out – Labor party failed to declare $225 000 donation on time.’

The Labor party fast-tracked regulations about the public declaration of donations before the last election, specifically in response to the intimate relationship between billionaire Clive Parker and the National party.

So, will Labor have to repay the money? Er…no. Will they have to pay a fine? Not likely. Will they suffer any significant loss of face? Um no, coz those who care about such things already looked upon them very poorly, and the vast majority of people couldn’t care less.

What a total balls-up the whole donations business is!

Ludwig asked: Interesting David. So does this mean that the Yanks have a much more tolerant view of donations or favours given to individual pollies than Ozzies do? Is it actually acceptable over there or is it all completely underhanded?

As long as the contribution is transparent and below a specified amount it is accepted. Contributions are given primarily to individual politicians. They are limited in value and must be made public. Congress has passed various laws restricting and monitoring political contributions. Look up McCain-Feingold bill on the net for details.

Large corporate and union contributions are limited by law. Corporations get around this by having management make contributions as individuals. The contributions are then repaid in the form of end of the year bonuses. However, the net has made a great difference. Politicians can get campaign financing by many small contributions large in aggregate but small enough as individuals so the candidate is not indebted. Obama has been excellent at using the net.

I believe one big factor preventing political reform in the area of campaign contributions is the rigid party discipline in the major Australian parties.

The McCain-Feingold bill regarding campaign contributions was across party lines. McCain is a Republican and Feingold is a Democrat. I do not believe that would happen in Australia.

Australia is not really a representative democracy. If it were our representative in parliament would ascertain the opinion of his electoral district and considering other factors such as the good of Australia and the promptings of his conscience would follow it even if it were contrary to the decision of the party caucus. In Australia the party in power must agree to reform of the system of political donations. It is unlikely to happen.

Well now isn’t this interesting; Qld Premier Anna Bligh wants to ban all political donations, and has taken here case forward for national discussion.

Excellent!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25855640-5013945,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25856745-26103,00.html