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.