Elections are often decided by the size of the campaign fund available to the candidate. Real estate developers, unions, corporate entities and others with a stake in the outcome can contribute large amounts to the campaign funds of candidates in local, state and national elections. While this is presently legal one can raise questions about the process.

What does the contributor expect in return?

Should the amount of contributions from any one source be capped so no contributor can expect special treatment?

Should political advertising be banned?

Should candidates be obligated to face each other in open debate with opportunity for questions from the public?

Should the entire matter of campaign finance be examined with a view to overhauling the process by such means as government financing, anonymous contributors etc.?

In the United States the League of Woman Voters makes assessments of the candidates available to the public. There is a great degree of objectivity in these assessments. Can Australia have a similar group?

I think that people distrust the political process since they feel money buys elections, and those without money who don’t represent an organised bloc of voters are left in the cold.

The system must change David.Perhaps it should be limited to donations
by individuals only.The corporates control both the major parties here and else where in the West.

I have no faith in either of the major parties.

Such ideas seemingly devalue the ability of voters to think.
And in fact many do not truly think.
However bet pounds to peanuts in next federal and NSW elections it will make no difference.
In NSW unless the sleeping conservatives put Turnbull in charge they will win an election they could fund with a weeks newspapers costs.
And without Turnbull? they still win an election with a leader with the charm and ability's of telegraph pole.
Federally show me please one election that evidence points to money spent being the X factor.

Belly; what planet are you on? Turnbull has nothing to do with NSW Politics.

Perhaps one option would be to take all monies contributed and place them in a 'combined fund' to be distributed evenly to 'all' the relevent parties.

At least then we will soon see what the donators expect in return, for, if they stop donating then it would be obvious what their motives were.

It is stating the obvious that donations are made to the party that will best favour the donor's economic position. It is not an altruistic act.

Banning political donations is the only way to go IMO. To enable all parties and Independents to campaign on an equal footing would only require access to media. Equal time to outline policies and platforms.

It is a difficult question for sure as there are costs involved with travelling around an electorate particularly sparser rural areas.

Rehctub's idea sounds good, but I bet the donations dry up if they were anonymous and equally distributed. Under this system a PayPal type third party could take the money without divulging the source and then distribute equally. It would not stop a business from revealing their intention to 'donate' nor would it necessarily stop secretive under-the-counter payments. But it is an interesting idea.

I have made a submission to the NSW State Electral Commission on Electral funding so my proposals are now their property and may be published by them. However my thoughts are that no money should be paid to Parties or Candidates, and the Commission itself should publish details of all persons standing and the Election be run similar as persons applying for a Management position on a large company. The shareholders are informed and make their choice.

David, with respect to your article, the subject needs a good airing. Politicians have always been able to circumvent any rule introduced regarding political donations, known and unknown.
I would like to introduce a "what if".
What if we had a government that actually worked for the people and the country. What if, they started doing everything required to make the life of the citizen comportable, and secure. What if, they started doing things that put our country in it's true light. Local Manufacturing, a workable health system, a universal education system that taught all the good things apart from the three r's, a top rate public transport system, old age with dignity.
Heck there is more.
If this "What if" was the true aim of our government the only question would be. Would we need any more elections on a national basis, or would we only have electorate voting when someone retires.
Do we have people who are honest enough for this, or should I just go back to sleep while waiting for Collingwood to win a premiership.

The questions posed by David are prefaced by the word "should" and the answers are all,- Yes- they should! But Democracy is not a perfect system and I can't see it ever happenning.There are too many ways of getting around any obstacles to advantage taking, especially by political opponents.We shall have to be content with an "open slather" situation where money is one factor but thankfully not always the clincher in winning.The one thing we can be grateful for is that Democracy, though flawed, is still the best form of Government.

I probably doubt it David f , Beaurocratic industries defend the gravy train , and with the intellectual comprehension of most of our supposed elected bozos and proletariat hacks mind numbing stupidity ;- Anything goes when idiots are in control- as well as write the statute books to make it easier for themselves and their psychopathic Idealism to come true regardless of the consiquences;

And they are by far the same people who control what was private industry – and enterprise.

Perhaps it would be a better question to ask ; Who in todays Politics is not corrupted by Loot and power? – The ranks are quite slim ;and as sad as that sounded ; it be a greater truth.

Dear davidf,

Spent a month off line and now I can play again.

Your second home is now wrestling with this very question. From my understanding corporations and unions were were limited in the size of the contributions they could make to political candidates as direct contributions were prohibited, but a recent Supreme Court ruling puts that at doubt. A 5-4 decision held that the limits had violated the corporations constitutional right to free speech (?). Wow!

Obama attacked the decision “"It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans,"

Contributions from individuals are limited to $2400 US per candidate per election, far stricter than here.

I recall the Republican House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, facing a Grand Jury for conspiracy for breaking the rules over campaign donations.

“On Oct. 3, 2005, a Grand Jury indicted Tom Delay on a felony conspiracy charge to move $190,000 in corporate donations to Republican candidates in the State Legislature in 2002. On Oct. 20th 2005, Tom Delay turned himself in to the Harris County Sheriff Office, one day after an arrest warrant was issued. Tom Delay was released after posting $10,000 bail.”

My reason for leaving the Australian Democrats, a party I felt to be a cut above the rest, was their move to chase the corporate dollar including selling time with senators.

I remember a late night drinking session with an Indian ships captain about the corruption levels in his home country. He told me that indeed the level of corruption at the street was very bad but in Australia yours is at the highest level.

I am more and more inclined to believe him. Thanks Amanda Vanstone.