Should donations to political parties be banned and all elections publically funded?

"Should donations to political parties be banned and all elections publically funded?"

Why? Aren't we paying enough to feed the politicians already?

The Australian electoral system is such a farce: are you then suggesting to pay even more from the public purse towards that mass-entertainment theater in charge of providing us with a semblance of democracy?

Besides, people should be able to give their after-tax money away to whomever they like. If it happens to be a political party, so be it. I'd rather feed the street-cats.

Yuyutsu,

I'm not suggesting anything, well, not yet.
I'm only asking a question.

If elections are to be funded from our taxes, there should be concomitant public accountability.

Politicians seeking election should be funded by the public only after they have produced a manifesto, which they are required to formally sign and commit to before a single dollar is paid to them.

At this point, they might conceivably receive a relatively small fixed sum from us, which is repayable i) if they do not achieve a minimum of, say, 5% of the available votes and ii) if they should, once elected, support a bill which concerned a matter not covered in their manifesto, or vote against one to which they had committed themselves.

The same would apply to a secondary amount, payable after the election, and assessed on the percentage of valid votes cast in their favour, to defray election expenses.

As far as private donations are concerned, these should be allowed i) when directed towards a specific candidate, rather than a party and ii) when fully declared within their manifesto to the electorate, prior to the election. This will provide some transparency as to the vested interests involved ahead of time, rather than as some form of afterthought.

Because why should a company be barred from providing financial support to the candidate who will further their interests, so long as the rest of the electorate is aware of it - heck, they might even support the plan themselves, if it is good enough.

The main problem with the current system is a complete and utter absence of clarity, which is what allows whichever mob is in power to do their own thing with impunity. If I have made it clear in my manifesto that I support the building of a pulp mill in the middle of my electorate, declared that the pulp mill owner has put $50,000 into my campaign, and the electorate knows all this and votes me into parliament, that would be a clear expression of the will of the people, would it not.

It would be something just the teensiest bit closer to a representative democracy.

It is worth considering particularly under the conditions that Pericles has proposed.

If taxpayers are to fund elections it should be minimal with an equal amount to each candidate/party and with all expenses to be subject to audit. Examples of expenses (with a suitable cap) might include printing of brochures, petrol for travelling within the electorate, hire of a hall for community talk etc.

Most election campaigning comes from television media in any case through interviews and current affairs programs. It would absolve the need for the specific mindless TV advertising which is nothing more than spin of no more relevance than a washing powder commercial.

A clear manifesto absolves the need for TV Ads as such and would reduce the cost to taxpayers.

I like the idea of an accountable manifesto. Issues like the Gunn's pulp mill would not only be a matter for the local electorate but the nation in terms of environmental policies.

Savings could be made elsewhere to fund such a proposal including a ban on government advertising (once government is formed)for purposes other than essential public service information.

Why it is a good question is that it is an essential element in the discussions about open, democratic and honest government.

The experiences of corruption exposed around property and land development would be miminised if the process was made transparent but even better if non-existent.

What ideas have you got on the subject Is Mise?

I'm with you there, Pericles.

Limiting donations and publicly funding elections might help the ordinary man (or woman, of course) to play politics on a level footing. It would mean that a candidate doesn't have to be wealthy or have powerful friends to run a viable campaign and, ultimately, to be elected to Parliament.

Your conditions for donations seem reasonable as well.