In 2011, the former Bligh Labor government capped political donations, saying it would limit the ability of the rich to influence government.

Current Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said that integrity would not suffer when the caps on both donations and electoral expenditure were axed.

“The next question is how do you maintain the highest level of integrity in that system? You have a continuous disclosure regime,” he said.

Oh really? So exactly how would that ensure integrity, I wonder.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/queensland-government-to-axe-cap-on-political-donations/story-e6frgczx-1226673225795

I think that this is a disgraceful move by the Newman Government, as it is perfectly clear that political donations influence political decisions, and that the big donations do this to a critical extent, especially when all the big donations come from the like-minded big business fraternity.

Given PM Rudd’s recent comments on his desire to improve the democracy of the Labor party, he should come out strongly and condemn this move by the Qld LNP, and give an undertaking to reduce political donations and hence the influence of big business on government.

The donations regime is a huge and blatantly antidemocratic aspect of our governance. It is high time it is reformed.

I call on Rudd to be true to his word about improving democracy and to make it happen.

Ludwig,
You'll need to ask Rudd to cap the funding for arts & sport as well because they, probably more than any other funding, influence masses of hangers-on to vote ALP.

I'm not up on this Luddy, so tell me.

Did this cap on political donations apply to the union donations?

If not it sounds like a typical lefty system of trying to hobble their opposition, while keeping their own cash flow intact. How the union/Labor cash flow could be considered anything other than payola I can't imagine.

You are right, Hasbeen. I would like to see all donations from organisations banned, whether they are corporations, business organisations, unions, or whatever. Only donations from individuals should be allowed, and they should be capped at a level that is well within the means of ordinary people.

Hasbeen do not believe that old saying.
A little knowledge is not dangerous, it can beat no understanding hands down.
Every government has taken cash from its supporters.
VERY RARELY is the amount Labor gets more than Liberals, work choices apart.
And every donation to any party is in the name of?
Self interest.

So Belly lets stop them all! I agree with Divergence, they should be only personal, & at a low level.

You do miss one point, as I would expect. A large number of people are members of unions by coercion. They do not want to be in any union, but are forced to be by the workplace.

These people do not want their union dues to fund Labor in particular, or any party in general.

Hey Hazza, we agree! Yarhooo! ( :>)

I’d prefer to see all donations abolished. But I guess small personal donations wouldn’t be a problem.

So then, how would it work? Where would the money come from to replace all the big donations?

There are only two choices that I can envisage:- the taxpayer, or those that currently give donations.

I think that it should come from pretty much the same sources that it comes from now, but in such a manner as to be compulsory and not at all voluntary.

We need a full analysis of where donations have come from over the last ?decade. We should work out the average donation size compared to annual profit for each type of business (and unions and other organisations) that has given donations, work out an average for all businesses in each category and then enshrine in law the compulsion for them to contribute that sort of funding, for the health of our political parties and of true democracy.

Another option would be to pool all donations and distribute them evenly amoung the parties.

Of cause this would reduce the total amount donated, as many would sit on their hands rather than see thier money go to others as well, but so beit.

After all, all we really want is a level playing field, don't we!

Funny how it always seems that Labor is keen to introduce caps on donations just at the end of its terms of government when the opposition seems to be getting more. This happened in both NSW and QSL where the labor governments did nothing for a decade, and suddenly introduced it (with exclusions for union and other labor friendly organisations).

Divergence: better to have no donations.
If the parties cannot survive without then so be it.
That would cut down on corruption

Rob,

The corruption is not in the donations to parties, but the undeclared "donations" to individuals, or in MPs making decisions that benefit them personally, or in MPs making investments based on insider knowledge, or from MPs selling "access". All these were rife in NSW and QSL Labor, and none of which will be addressed by the window dressing reforms that Rudd is proposing.

Robert LePage,

I would not be too concerned if there were no donations allowed at all, but we do need some mechanism whereby candidates can tell the voters where they are coming from and what they would do if elected. The lack of this information for independents frequently annoys me when I am trying to decide how to vote.

The problem with Ludwig's idea of public funding relates to how the money would be divided. It isn't reasonable that a very small party, the Marijuana Party, say, should get the same funding as the Liberals, but if you allocate funding by how many seats the party has or how many votes they got, then you are giving a tremendous advantage to the incumbents, which they may not deserve. Letting individuals donate small amounts would provide a better test of support.

Another idea would be to make sure that everyone has at least a secondhand computer and basic internet access. Candidates and parties could then be required to put up information about themselves on the Web, minus the sound bites and sloganeering.

Shadow Minister,

You are assuming that only individual politicians can be corrupted, but don't accept the possibility that a whole party can be corrupted by accepting big donations from the property developers, say, or the hotels and clubs. Both types of corruption are problems.

Hasbeen ...... name ONE person who is currently "forced" (your term) to be a union member. NAME THE PERSON .... just ONE.

People, you do realise that Campbell Newman just got a 4i.9% pay rise don't you? Probably not, or if you're a far rightie I guess you just don't care.

I could introduce you to half a dozen teachers, & a dozen public servants PJack, but I won't endanger their future employment by naming them.

If you believe none are forced to pay union dues to get their job PJack, you must be the only person in Oz who is that thick.

That Qld Pay rise is already causing more waves than the federal one last year. They're both disgusting & we should petition both the Governor General of Australia & the Governor of Qld to change this legislation. It really is nothing short of indecent.
You only require three names, addresses & tel Nr and send it to the Governor General & the Governor. Do it before the election & see how they react. That's the one thing about big Clive, he doesn't need to do it for the money.

<< The problem with Ludwig's idea of public funding relates to how the money would be divided. >>

Divergence, I can’t see why a formula couldn’t be devised that would give small parties a somewhat disproportionately higher per-capita level of funding, in just the same way that we pay different levels of tax in different tax brackets.

I don’t think that the funding for small parties should be in any way based on donations from individuals. Once you have a party that is desperate for donations, you have a situation where those donations become linked to the the wishes of the donors. And even very small donations given to cash-strapped small parties could create a bias in their decision-making.

donations become linked to the the wishes of the donors.
Ludwig,
I don't see any difference there between this & political parties making election promises with OUR money to get themselves elected.

Indi, fixing the donations issue is not going to solve all problems of bias or corruption.

Making promises and then failing to carry them out is another issue which needs to be looked at. We definitely need a whole lot more accountability in this regard.

Why do any of them need this funding money, can't they get elected on their own merits.
Do we need to be reminded of what one side say is not good for us.
People can make up their own mind without all the b/s that is shown on tv. Not everyone has the same views.
Take Abbott for example, everyone knows he has woman trouble, him and Hockey would be the two worst to ever put their hand up for election.
The people of AU are not that stupid. As Abbott said the polls were always going to get closer as the time nears to the election.
Abbott knows the election is not about policies, that is why he says nothing, amongst other reasons. Hocky screws his nose up and that says everything. We can look forward to a majority govt; and no more hung parliaments.

The people of AU are not that stupid.
doog,
I'm inclined to say it's 50-50 of people voting conservative to all the lefties combined.

The people of Australia have only one chance to keep Australia & that is at the upcoming federal election. They can stand back & look at an Australia being undermined by an ALP government or they can wake up & get a Coalition Government which hopefully inherits sufficient funds from this Government to bring this country back onto the rails of sustainability. I hope Australians will think Australia instead of me,me when they cast their next vote.
If they don't they'll find themselves working for others instead of themselves. This is the last chance of arresting the rot.