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.

I think that the only form of political public funding should be by the publication of each party's official manifesto before elections, all with equal fonts and presentations.

Anything beyond that is the private matter of the parties and should not be funded by the tax-payer.

Parties who so wish, may also endorse along with their manifesto, a list of enforceable penalties that they are willing to take if their elected candidates do not follow their manifesto. It is up for the parties to assign their own punishment in advance - the more severe it is, the more that party can be trusted to actually follow its manifesto.

It should also be up to each party to decide whether they wish to disclose their funds or not. Obviously parties that will not disclose would raise an eye-brow or two and should not be trusted, but that's OK, it's their problem. For disclosures to be trusted, they should be made under oath, so there are heavy penalties for incorrect/misleading/missing information.

As a member of Family First NSW I have made a submission to the NSW Electral funding body in 2007 that all Election advertizing should be publicly funded by the money they currently pay out to Parties on their percentage votes. That the persons profile, policies, view of society and values by presented in a booklet to every elector similar to what they produce at a referendum. The position would be that the person standing would be presented as in a job interview for we the public to choose.

The Greens, to their credit, have opposed political donations and espoused public funding.
I doubt that the majour parties will do the same.

Clearly, you approve, Is Mise.

>>The Greens, to their credit, have opposed political donations and espoused public funding.<<

But what exactly is your objection to political donations? In a free and democratic country, should I not have the absolute right to support my parliamentary representative in any way I can?

By what authority would you suspend my legal rights? In other words, exactly what do you propose is made illegal? If I allow a candidate to sleep in the guest room while he or she is out on the hustings, is this a "political donation", for example.

I think you are treading a dangerous path for all of us, Is Mise, not just would-be-politicians. There are enough of our freedoms being eroded on a daily basis as it is.

"The Greens, to their credit, have opposed political donations and espoused public funding"

Literally so!

Their account was credited, my tax-payer account was debited.

"Should donations to political parties be banned and all elections publically funded?"
Yep. And I've thought of some rules:
1- The amount of advertising permitted, and thus resources, is capped, to ensure no party will divert tens of millions into promoting themselves.
2- This money will be given to any party or independent ONLY if they can list their policies in a broad range of areas, or substantially policies in specific areas, to ensure nobody falsely standing can pocket the money (of course they would refund it if they leave early or don't get in).
3- The advertisements themselves must be 75% policy.

4- alternatively, if we DO allow 'donations', we still maintain the cap for election funds and advertising allowances, but also demand (as Pericles suggested) that in each add the party MUST disclose every donor that sent it money and how much, or if NOBODY funded it.
In fact, while the ad goes on, we could even have text appear on screen listing "This party is sponsored by" followed by all the company logos and names.
This text takes priority over any other visual element, so if the party took massive donations, they have to endure massive text scroll. The ad can continue going as long as necessary to cover them all, however the party still only gets the same limited amount of time to make a case- even if it means getting 1 minute of speech and 5 minutes of donors listed in silence.
Therefore, channels are at liberty to fit a party advertisement between programs, instead of in breaks, if the sponsor list is too long.
This can also happen during political debates.

Simple reason is the system we have now puts politicians who take bribes in a substantial advantage over parties and candidates that actually do the right thing, as only they end up getting advertising money.
My system not only informs of bribes, but actually harms the party's ability to advertise while non-bribed candidates are blessed with more TV time slots.

One of the more intriguing aspects of this discussion is the prevalent assumption that the available funding goes into the coffers of a political party.

Consider for a moment how much would change, very quickly, if campaign funds - from whatever source - were directed at the candidate, who would be individually responsible for accounting for its expenditure.

For a start, we would be observing the "representative" part of the "representative democracy" that we apparently operate.

A party's "central office" would have to survive only by being involved directly in the election of their candidate, rather than simply wallow around in OPM as they do at the moment.

The idea of disallowing or limiting donations to political parties is silly, it also cannot work: what prevents the party members from organizing themselves in a shadow organization such as "The society for furthering the ideas of the XXXXX party", then publishing whatever they like with any amount of their own money they like?

The Government should not reimberse any candidate or party for their campain expenses as they currently do. This would stop a lot of wanton waste by parties on their pre-election campaign.

A cap on electeral expense by a party of $1 per person in the Electorate; not reimbursable would be a suitable cap.

"The Government should not reimberse any candidate or party for their campain expenses as they currently do"

Agreed. A better way is to equip polling stations with tin boxes where electors can drop a gold-coin for their candidates.

The amounts collected will also give us an indication as to how many voters actually like their "representatives" as opposed to those who only select them as the least-evil.

While it could be argued private donations are one's right, so far it appears private donations have done more to erode the rights of others who do not have access to that sort of money or clout.

Would there be any need for donations from interested individuals or groups at all if electioneering was based purely on factual content without the sheen and gloss of political spin in the form of Ads, debates and the like.

What is it we need to know to cast our vote?

Do we really need more of the same ie. politicians telling us what the 'other side' is not doing or doing, we can make up our own minds by reading the various manifestos.

Special interests have a huge amount of influence on politicians through campaign donations. This in turn can lead to policies that favour those interests rather than national priorities. Full public funding may allow elected officials to spend more time addressing issues, focusing more on policies rather than fund raising. It may also level the playing field for candidates - giving all citizens regardless of wealth a fair shot to be heard and to participate in the democratic process. Whether this will actually work in practice however - is another matter. It may just be an unrealistic pipe-dream.
However, one can live and hope.

The Greens, to their credit, have opposed political donations and espoused public funding"

Literally so!

Their account was credited, my tax-payer account was debited.Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 17 March 2011 8:13:23 AM

Full marks, Yuyutsu, for a correct analysis of my statement!!

(quote)
Editorial:

The Australian 12 January 2011

Senator Brown has been busy justifying the gift from Graeme Wood, which bankrolled a major advertising campaign ahead of the August election. Mr Wood is a very rich man and this is a personal donation, but Senator Brown's rhetoric is simply ludicrous when set alongside his attacks on corporate donations and his bid to replace them with public funding of elections. The Greens leader has made a moral crusade out of banning corporate money, ratcheting up his language over the years. In 2009, for example, he suggested that "democracy is being eroded by money" and warned that those who could not afford to donate were increasingly powerless in our political system.
(continued)

(read on)

A gift with questions attache

$1.6 MILLION donation sits strangely with Greens rhetoric.

Bob Brown is a smart politician and he just might convince some that the $1.6 million donation from Wotif.com founder Graeme Wood is different from the corporate donations the Greens leader has criticised in the past. Senator Brown has been busy justifying the gift, which bankrolled a major advertising campaign ahead of the August election. Mr Wood is a very rich man and this is a personal donation, but Senator Brown's rhetoric is simply ludicrous when set alongside his attacks on corporate donations and his bid to replace them with public funding of elections. The Greens leader has made a moral crusade out of banning corporate money, ratcheting up his language over the years. In 2009, for example, he suggested that "democracy is being eroded by money" and warned that those who could not afford to donate were increasingly powerless in our political system.

Mr Wood's gift is the largest single political donation in the nation's history,........ The Australian has absolutely no problem with either gift, nor with corporate donations in general, as long as shareholders are satisfied. The only reason the Wotif.com money has become an issue is because Senator Brown has made it so. With stunning disregard for his own words, the Greens leader has absorbed this money into the party's political operations, arguing that it is within the existing rules. It is an accommodation that reeks of opportunism rather than the high principles espoused by the senator. It seems donations are bad when they support your rivals but fine when they come your way. The Greens' gains at the last election cemented them as the third party. That means increased scrutiny of their operations and the gaps between rhetoric and action. Senator Brown needs to do better if he is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy.
(unquote)

Greens' supporters please justify this historic hypocracy, if you can.

I'm not sure you can call it hypocrisy, Is Mise. And I'm not a Green.

>>Greens' supporters please justify this historic hypocracy, if you can.<<

Mr Brown is simply operating under the same rules as everyone else. Until those rules are changed, he is perfectly entitled - indeed, obliged - to accept the donation.

I might decide that all Australians should be allowed unfettered access to top-quality health care, and campaign vigorously for the necessary laws to be passed, taxes to be raised, and the private health funds abolished. In the meantime, though, I will continue with my health insurance, because the infrastructure isn't there yet.

I am equally comfortable to campaign for the public education system to be improved to be as good as my son's private school, on the basis that it would be a really great thing for the country to achieve. In the meantime, though, I'll continue to pay the fees.

It is not hypocrisy. If I were a Green, and were told that Mr Brown had knocked back a perfectly legal and legitimate donation "on principle", I'd question his sanity.

There is of course a line. If it were drug money, for example. But this one isn't even from a "property developer".

Pericles,
The money Bob Brown accepted was from a special interested person in buying the Greens agenda, which is what the Greens are against in other Parties donations from their special interested persons or groups. This is not a consistent act on principle just accepting the same buying of support for their agenda. Obviously a double standard which the public will not accept as integrity of one's word.

Double-standards, spin and rhetoric, where have we heard all this before? It raises the logical problem of whether it is possible to damage the reputation of someone who publicly admits to the trade of politician. I used to think that the House of Reps was supposed to be the dominant House of Parliament because governments are formed mainly from its members. This ill-mannered debating society is under the illusion that it runs the country. However, we all know that its members spend their time deludedly being rude to one another, cabinet, party heavies, pressure groups, lobbyists, businessmen and overseas financiers get on with running the country.

As far as the Greens are concerned for those of you who'd like some clarification on the facts behind the donation and the reasons for it
try the following website:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/web-millionaire-banrolled-greens-20110107-19iw9.html

In NSW politicts there is only one true enviromentalist and that is Ian Choen the rest are socialist reformers. Unfortunately Ian is not standing again for re-election. That means the former Communist / Socialist Party stalwarts agenda is social reformation.

Example: Ultimately in education dictating to parents where their children are to be educated by removing tax payer funds of $800,000 currently given to private and religious schools in NSW from tax payers children who attend schools of the tax payer parents choice.

The Greens are socially divisive of parents responsibility to educate their own children by choice.

The $1.6 million Graeme Wood tipped into the Greens coffers was merely a political decision to be spent on further abuse of the environment. He would have been more environmentally friendly and practical if he had rather purchased large tracts of second grade land and planted a million acre forest. Shows his real concern for green issues - just another social reformer.

Philo,

You need to do a bit more research on the topic - you'd find that what you're saying is stunningly ignorant.

Lexie,
How was the money spent? Was it spent on actual environment betterment or on Greens campaign expenses?

Remember you are speaking to someone who has since 1990 been involved in planting 160 hectare of hardwood forest on privately owned land, with the intention of harvesting at 40 years creating employment and housing and regrowth of a new forest. Greens are about a political agenda and are equally responsible for environmental abuse by humans not about environmental reconstruction.

Lexi,

Bob Brown and the Greens are opposed to financial donations to political parties.

The Greens are a political party.

Therefore their, and his, acceptance of a financial donation goes against their stated policy.

Ergo they and Bob Brown are hypocrites.

The principle is the thing although the principal obviously proved to be moro enticing.

Dear Is Mise and Philo,

I'm not going to argue with you. Bob Brown and the Greens are still
fighting for donations to be capped at $1,000. That hasn't changed.
You have to look at things in the time and context of when they occurred and why, in order to fully understand things before making accusations. Read the link I gave previously and do your own research.

Lexi,
NSW already has a cap on individual donations at $1000 and all donations have to be registered with NSW Electral commission.

Philo,

For your information - since 1st January 2011 - NSW State elections are set from $2000 for donations to or for the benefit of an individual or unregistered political party to $5,000 for a registered political party or group of candidates. Campaign spending will be capped at $100,000 per candidate, plus $100,000 per electorate by political parties.

Just thought you aught to get it right.

That's rather unfair of you, Is Mise.

>>the Greens are opposed to financial donations to political parties. The Greens are a political party. Therefore their, and his, acceptance of a financial donation goes against their stated policy. Ergo they and Bob Brown are hypocrites.<<

The Greens are also in favour of raising the tax rate...

http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/economics

...on your logic, if they don't voluntarily pay a higher rate, they are being hypocritical.

The are also in favour of abolishing the 30% rebate on Private Health Insurance. Are they being hypocritical, to claim that rebate today?

You're not thinking straight on this one.

Lexie,
You are correct; however all donations over $1,000 must be registered with the Electoral Commission with details of the donation.

From the amount of glossy Greens material I been getting in my letter box is against the original principles of Greens policy, who once recycled at polling booths. They are not about trees anymore but about socialist reform.

Philo,

Now you're really grabbing at straws - and name calling. Shame on you. It seems to me that you're simply against anything Green. Fancy telling us that the Greens are against trees because they used "glossy paper" in the ads you're getting in your letter-box.

Philo, recycled paper has come a long way from the brown scrunchy material of a few years ago. Today, it can be white, gloss, silk, or matt, and looks and feels great. The Greens believe in saving resources.

It's not just writing paper, card and envelopes that can be made from recycled paper. So can document wallets, files, storage boxes and much, much more.

The Greens believe in products that are environmentally benign or have environmental advantages. Their aim to maintain business practices is consistent with the goals of sustaining our fragile environment with a culture that respects life and honours its independence. They have an entire site with a whole section on how to green your office with a simple seven step practical plan and five reasons to use green office products if you, your colleagues, or your superiors need convincing. Do your research. You're totally wrong about them.

"The Greens believe in saving resources"

Saving for what? for more babies? for more offices? for more recycled paper? for more culture? for more electronics? for more superiors? for more control?

Trying to squeeze a bit more of the above into this dwindling environment instead of addressing the root problem - the ecological explosion of the human race and human-culture.

The Greens who consider collectivization as a "resource-saving measure", are just like a watermelon - green on the outside, red inside!

Lexie,
Please identify where I have named berson by abusive names? by this charge. "name calling. Shame on you".

Philo,

You said, they're not about trees anymore but about "socialist reform." I associated that term with the usual "charming rhetoric" of
them being referred to as "watermelons," - green on the outside, red on the inside. My apologies to you if I misunderstood you. And a big raspberry, if I didn't.

Lexie,
It was Yuyutsu who used that term. However it is well known that the leaders of the Greens in NSW are former Communist party members - socialist reformers.

Philo,

You state that it is well known that the leaders of the Greens in NSW
are former Communist Party members. Really? Do you have the evidence for such a statement? If so, please do provide your evidence - or re-tract your statement.

From what I can see - it would appear that the Green candidates in NSW are quite young achievers, well educated, coming from well-to-do backgrounds. Former Communist Party members? Sounds like a bit of an attempt at fear mongering to me - except who's going to take it seriously, that's so yesterday.

Lexie,
Lee Rhiannon parents were leaders of the Communist party In Australia and Lee was herself a member. Research her background it had nothing to do with trees, it is just they managed to grab an issue - Carbon and create a frightening senario.

Philo,

My parents voted Liberal all of their lives - and so did I while I lived with them in my youth, I didn't know any better. Then I travelled, and got an education and started to think for myself. People change and evolve. - What one did in one's youth is one thing. As an adult - one begins to question things and as one's education and experience grows - one makes one's own decisions which path one is going to take. No one can be held responsible for the actions of one's family members, certainly not one's parents. One can be held responsible only for one's own actions. Personally get the distinct impression that - you're still grabbing at straws here. Anyway, let's
try going back to the topic of this thread shall we - I believe it's
supposed to be something to do with the funding of elections - not an attack on the Greens.

its as if no-one even botherd to watch sbs lastnight
the politics system is corrupted

if you think ''casino jack and the united states of money'' was just about jack and the indians...you missed the reason and teaching of the cutting wedge special

see the cake is despoiled
it would be nice if we could
individually point at a corrupt 'party'[as such]..

but this isnt the case...

its beyond party
beyond even lobby or the corruption of public service

to go looking for an innocent 'man'
is to miss the whole sceme has been corrupted

everything from banking to secuirities
insurance to regulation
law and justice policing and enforcement

we have the vile running vileness of busines
so where is the cure..

[..how can we fix this mess]

we need to restore politics
civil and death-duties
[those who plan and sceme cannot hold
their illgotten gain beyond the grave...

[this means no family trusts
no party politricks]

all corperate entities
[non living thus non dying]..need to 'die' as well

we need drop all personal taxation's
just live off corperate transaction taxes

and finantial services levies[insurance]
govt in affect underwriting/insuring everyone
within their juristiction]

not for proffit corperations]

of course honest money is a must
this is based on physical underwriting..the theoretical
ursury is a crime..

but why bother ..those who see no problem..dont listen to solution

soon it will be obvious to all
but by then more will have died for no good reason

in times of war we die ..in fear distrust discusst

when the hand of peace is offerd
[even if its intending to hurt you]
refusing to make peace..only prolongs war

seek you security to make peace
or reason to continue fraud war?

The fact is Lexie the Greens have been deceitful in their stand on election funding, appearing to be about environment, while their real agenda is about societal reformation under their control.

As I have stated previously their view is to eradicate people of religious faith from society. This the communists tried in the 1940s in Russia. Where is Russia today? - teaching faih in their schools as the eradication attempt was a failure, and destroyed and imprisoned thousands in their attempt. Similar with communist China and the imprisoned falin-gong movement who'se body parts are used for transplants. The Greens believe in abortion, population reduction, euthenasia etc all attitudes promoting death on a society.

Not convinced, Philo.

>>The fact is Lexie the Greens have been deceitful in their stand on election funding<<

If they gained power, I am sure that they would implement their policy on election funding, exactly as they propose.

If they did not, then - and only then - could you describe them as deceitful. Simple fact is, they are operating within the existing framework, just like every other Party. Why would they jeopardize their chance to actually implement their policies, by taking a holier-than-thou stance that disadvantages them and gets them nowhere?

As I pointed out to Is Mise, there are many other areas of their policy that they will continue to pursue - taxation, middle-class welfare etc. - while at the same time operating as citizens, along with the rest of us.

I have no time for Green policies, by the way. But this is a matter of simple logic, not policy.

Philo,

Pericles has put it much better than I could have. I have never voted for the Greens - however I have found that your arguments have to date - been illogical and therefore I cannot agree with them.

"The Greens are also in favour of raising the tax rate...

...on your logic, if they don't voluntarily pay a higher rate, they are being hypocritical.

The are also in favour of abolishing the 30% rebate on Private Health Insurance. Are they being hypocritical, to claim that rebate today?

You're not thinking straight on this one
.Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 19 March 2011 10:31:00 PM"

I am thinking straight on this and I'd expect those who advocate higher rates on anything to make voluntary donations equal to the higher rates to show that they are willing to lead by example, otherwise I'd consider them to be hypocritical.
The Power Companies offer a higher rate of payment for 'Green' electricity and I know people who pay this voluntary higher rate because they think that by so doing they are helping the planet.

These are people whose money is where their mouth is; I hasten to add that although I admire their principles I am not one with them on this.

Wow, Is Mise, you take no prisoners, do you.

>> I'd expect those who advocate higher rates on anything to make voluntary donations equal to the higher rates to show that they are willing to lead by example, otherwise I'd consider them to be hypocritical.<<

That would of course be a first in political history. A world first, no less. Where the public requires their politicians - whether in power or not - to live by the letter of their manifesto commitments.

I'm still not convinced it is practical, though.

How would it work, do you think, if my election manifesto advocated a zero rate income tax, to be replaced by a flat transaction tax? The ATO would have me behind bars in a New York minute. "Ah, but Mr D’Ascenzo, it would be hypocritical of me not to follow my own prescription for Australia's economic well-being"

Or if I proposed the legalization of marijuana. How do you think my defence would stand up in court - "I was simply standing by my principles, yer Honour, it would be hypocritical of me not to supply my friends and neighbours when they asked me."

Nope. Doesn't wash. The rules are the rules, right up until the moment they are changed, I'm afraid.

Right on there Pericles, the Green's want to decrimalise drug use. I've worked with young men who regularly smoke dope. They when employed at 18 were intelligent by 24 were incoherent slobs. Today dependent on Welfare. I have been involved in building and developing drug rehabilitation farm for referrals. They learn to go cold turkey and turn their lives around.

Allowing them merely to remain on drugs just destroys their lives.

Statistics show that alcohol causes much more social and actual damage to the social structure than substance abuse.

But that off subject for this post. Great work of thought, I think Pericles and Pelican.

I havent contributed but I'm having a great read.

On the subject of the Greens accepting donations, what else can they do?,
that is, the way it is.

the mass entertainment is an absolute farce .. and should not be paid from the public purse

I have no problem with limited public funds being applied to disseminating POLICY ... but not the promotion of political cult heroes (aka 'leaders') endlessly brandishing insults and half truths against each other ... in some futile attempt at POPULISM

As far as politicians living up to their word, Ted Mack springs to mind. He, you will all undoubtedly remember, resigned from Parliament two days before he qualified for a pension because he objected to the level of such pensions.

No one, least of all I, would consider that a political principle allowed one to break the law, but it could be considered to be hypocracy if one advocated breaking the law and then didn't do it.

The examples cited don't wash because their proponents didn't advocate breaking the law, whereas the Greens stated that they were against political donations. Not accepting them would have been lawful and an admireable demonstration of their committment to reform and possibly, in the long term, worth the cost.

Personally I'm glad that Brown did accept because it is ammunition for at least the next three elections.