In 2012 the NSW parliament passed a new law on political donations that limits donations to individuals that are on the electoral role, capped at 5000$.

This is an excellent step forward.

I find it absolutely amazing that such a thing could be passed, given that politicians are always money-hungry and always very close the their big-business buddies who give the big donations.

So good on Barry O’Farrell for pushing it, and his colleagues for seeing fit to pass it.

This really is a watershed moment in Australian politics. It proves that government can do things which are strongly against the wishes of their all-powerful influences of big business and unions.

I have long called for a ban to all political donations, so that political parties are funded in an entirely neutral manner, rather than one in which big donations can buy big favours and very seriously corrupt democracy.
.

But the unions are now fighting this decision in the High Court.

Well… they would, wouldn’t they! But all of their arguments actually amount to very good reasons for NOT accepting donations from unions!

They are fundamentally concerned about the reduction in their power to influence government decisions, and implicit in this is the notion that by giving donations, they have indeed had significant power over government….. which is precisely what needs to be eliminated!

Premier O’Farrell said;

"We are not only confident that the laws will withstand the challenge but they will clean up the rotten Labor party decisions for donations culture that exists in NSW"

I hope to goodness that this law is not skittled by the High Court, and that other state governments then see fit to follow suit.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-05/unions-begin-high-court-challenge-to-nsw-electoral-donation-laws/5070612

Ludwig,
I am not sure If I understand your opening sentence.

"In 2012 the N.S.W. parliament passed a new law on political donations that limits donations to individuals that are on the electoral role, capped at 5000".

Are the donations given by Government "TO" or "FROM" individuals? Who are these individuals receiving the donations? Are these individuals candidates being reimbursed for expenses incurred in their election campaign?

Josephus, we’re talking about donations to the NSW Labor party.

As O’Farrell said; there has been a culture of donations for decisions in the Labor government in NSW.

While it has been a glaring issue in NSW, it is a major corruption of democracy in throughout government in this country, at all levels.

It is just so blatant! I don’t know how the Australian people have allowed it to continue!

Political parties get a large part of their funding from vested interests. Big donors don't give them big money for no reason! They buy favours. Pure and simple!

And those interests all line up on one side of the political philosophy – the continuous-rapid-growth antisustainability side!

Dear Ludwig,

Such legislation has been in place in the US. It is easier for corporations to get around it than it is for unions. In Connecticut where I lived was United Technologies (UT), a corporation which produced the materials of war. Such a corporation is euphemistically called a defense contractor. Management at UT was 'encouraged' to donate to the Republican Party which favoured the military-industrial complex. Eisenhower, a Republican president, had the integrity to warn the country against the complex. The corporate execs were not out of pocket. At the end of the year when corporate execs got their bonuses their bonuses reflected their contributions.

Yntema, a UT executive, blew the whistle on the practice and was rewarded by being sacked.

In practice the law favours corporations along with the Liberal Party and is against unions. It is not neutral.

Oh come on david f, are you trying to tell us many unions don't leak money like a bucket with no bottom. Of course most of that goes to union officials, not government as the union officials are too greedy to give up any they get their hands on.

Just what would you call Obama giving half a billion to companies run by his campaign donors.

The right side of politics are babes in the woods when it comes to payola. Do come of the sanctimonious grass mate.

The donations law was only introduced before the elections to try and cut off the funding to the coalition by limiting private donations where the coalition got most of its funding, but not limiting donations from unions.

What else can you expect from such criminal organisations as the labor party.

But SM, this law prevents donations from unions!… and still allows donations from private donors, up to 5000$, which is still pretty substantial from individuals.

This donations law was introduced because NSW Labor was so obviously seriously corrupted, and absolutely needed to do something highly significant to fix the issue, and to be seen to fix it in the eyes of the ordinary folk of NSW.

Yes I reckon it wouldn’t have happened unless things had deteriorated to a very low level. But nonetheless, it is a very good move. Surely you agree??

Ludwig,

Now we have got rid of the corrupt Labor government, the problem has largely gone.

Most of the corruption did not come from donations.

SM, sure, fixing the donations issue won’t cure the corruption of democracy. But it will certainly be a big first step.

Ludwig,

Why on earth do you think that the donations issue is flawed?

Where is the need to limit individual donations to $5000?

<< Why on earth do you think that the donations issue is flawed? >>

Hmmmm. Very interesting that you should feel the need to ask this. I thought it was bleedingly obvious.

O’Farrell put it very well:

The new law… < will clean up the rotten Labor party decisions for donations culture that exists in NSW >.

Donations buy decisions. They sway government agendas they bias the whole caboodle towards what big business wants, which is where the big and abundant donations come from. They seriously corrupt democracy. And not just with Labor governments.

<< Where is the need to limit individual donations to $5000? >>

The bigger a donation, the more likely it is to sway government. Keeping them small keeps the antidemocratic bias small.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-stuck-in-travel-expenses-cycle-of-shame-20131109-2x8lr.html
Saying and doing are very different things.
I see the link shows the Hypocrites who pursued Slipper are unable to wash to dirt from their own hands Barry is standard issue one of them.

Ludwig,

The Labor donations culture is broken. It was common knowledge that "donations" were required for access to ministers, and bigger donations were required for decisions. These "donations" were actively solicited by labor from businesses that had strong ethical objections.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Do you think business contributes to any political party for any other reason than either to get access or legislation favourable to its interests?

The system is inherently corrupt. The interests of those with deep pockets are served ahead of the interests of ordinary people, the environment and sustainability.

David f as you will be aware the NSW Liberals are even involved in the NSW FILTH scandal.
Shadow Minister has eye sight difficulty's, he is unable to see faults on his side of the house.
However true crimes have and are being committed in the travel rort,s area right now.
SM will not be seen calling for better from his self seeking party.
Ample evidence of his lashing out at Slipper, for just that, is here to see however.

<< The Labor donations culture is broken >>

SM, the donations culture is broken, across the board.

.

Well said davidf.

David,

When I donate to the coalition, I do expecting that they will continue legislating in my interests. This is not corrupt, and is democratic. Coercing "donations" is a corrupt labor practice.

Ludwig,

Don't judge the coalition by Labor's corrupt standards.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Coercing contributions is a corrupt practice. If you want to believe such a practice is restricted to the Labor Party you will believe it. I don't.

Ludwig,

Under the NSW labor government the "donations for access" was rife, and most of these "donations" were less than the $5000 and were generally handled by intermediary "lobby" groups, so the donation limit is largely ineffective.

From the people I work with in the construction industry I understand these "donations" have not continued under the coalition, and certainly the news commentary on the issue has also gone quiet. Perhaps you have something different that you know of, but I believe what I can see for myself.

<< Ludwig don't judge the coalition by Labor's corrupt standards >>

SM, I’m not. Just because it reached a chronic level of corruption with NSW Labor doesn’t mean that it isn’t also an issue with the Libs.

It is ALWAYS going to be an issue, and a fundamental violation of democracy, when we have big donations, or any donations for that matter, to political parties, especially the one in government!

The Libs / Nats / Coalition are essentially the same as Labor in kowtowing to the big-business big-donations lobby, are they not?

Looking across the whole country, over the last couple of decades, can you tell me that they are not, SM?

<< Under the NSW labor government the "donations for access" was rife, and most of these "donations" were less than the $5000 and were generally handled by intermediary "lobby" groups, so the donation limit is largely ineffective. >>

OK, so if this is true, then I would like O’Farrell to get rid of the 5000$ cap and declare a ‘no donations at all’ regime.

That’s what I’ve always lobbied for; a complete abolition of donations.

But I was still pleased to see O’Farrell take it as far as he did.

<< When I donate to the coalition, I do expecting that they will continue legislating in my interests. This is not corrupt, and is democratic. >>

Hold on SM, yes it is, yes it is, yes it IS corrupt!!

It means that those who donate can sway government decisions. And when the big donators are all on one side of the political spectrum, decisions get swayed decisively in their favour, and the whole political direction gets governed by those with strong vested interests, ruthless competitiveness and greed for ever-higher profits!!

It is the same principle for you the little individual donator as it is for the big boys!

Meanwhile, those who want a non-vested-interest-pandering government, which will genuinely work towards a healthy and prosperous society in the long term, don’t have the ability to donate 1% as much as the big end of town!

This is one of the great problems with our political setup that we call a democracy, but which has been comprehensively HIJACKED… and antidemocratised as a result!!

If you as an individual can admit that you want certain policies to prevail by way of your small donations, then what do you think big companies want? Why do you think they donate the big bucks??

Come on SM, join me and lobby for a no-donations regime across the board.

ludwig,

I'm sorry, but I strongly believe in the right of individuals to get involved in politics, whether it is donating time, money or other services. And if I donate $500 to the Liberals because I want to get rid of the carbon tax, stop illegal immigration, etc that is in no way corrupt.

If you want to preventing the unions from donating more than $5000 p.a. then be my guest, as they are the biggest political donors.

Sure SM, get involved with politics, but leave the donations out of it.

It begs the question – why would you donate 500$ or whatever? What difference do you think that would make to your favoured political party?

Not money well spent, surely!

SM, just for you a bit of Liberal corruption in Sutherland Council, what is O'Farrell doing about that. The Liberal Party is just as corrupt as Labor, but at the moment they are a bit better at hiding it.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sutherland-council-favours-those-with-liberal-connections-20130920-2u5dl.html

Ludwig,

Considering the $1000s that labor cost me directly in flood tax, carbon tax, private health tax etc and the $10 000s that they borrowed on my behalf, a small donation to party that can reverse Labor's economic vandalism and corruption is money well spent.

SM, these taxes are costing you thousands??

You must be doin alright then!

If you are doing that well, then why are you against these taxes??

Isn’t it a good thing to have all income earners contribute a little bit towards helping those struck by the floods?

Isn’t it a good thing to try and start steering our society off of its total addiction to fossil fuels and onto renewable energy sources?

Wouldn’t it be preferable to pay a little bit more as a result of these taxes, and be happy in the knowledge that you are contributing to the betterment of society?

Sure, there is plenty that is not good about Labor. But there is actually more that is not good about the Coalition!

You quite happily give 500$ (per annum?) to your party. And yet surely these taxes and any other imposts that you have attributed to Labor haven’t cost you as much as that?

Ludwig,

So because I studied for years, and work really hard, I should be quite happy when the incompetent labor government feels the need to keep dipping their hands in my back pocket, simply because they keep pissing our taxes away with their idiot white elephant projects.

If they hadn't wasted $17bn on their stupid cash give away and overspent the school halls stuff up, they wouldn't need to find the $1.2bn for flood relief. Most competent governments do this out of reserve funds.

The top 25% of earners of which I am one, just, pay 60% of the taxes and get 1% of the benefits. So while I don't mind paying tax, arbitrary new taxes to fund lavish spending really annoys me, so a donation to toss the labor crooks out is money well spent.

"The top 25% of earners of which I am one" SM I didn't realise Maccas paid that well. What about Sutherland Council? The only difference between Labor and the Liberals in NSW is Labor got Eddie and the Liberals want him.

But SM, your donation is both democratically unprincipled, as I have explained in this thread, and useless in achieving your desired outcome.

It wouldn’t make a hoot of difference to the Coalition’s policy platform or to their vehemence in knocking Labor, would it?

So surely it is not money well spent!

Paul,

I didn't realise that you worked at Macca's!

What has the actions of a staff member at Sutherland council to do with the coalition?

I see yet another Labor MP is being investigated for criminal activity.

Ludwig,

If I donate to a charity or organization, it is because I want them to continue and expand what they are doing. Whether I donate money, time or materiel it is all the same. The alternative is to sit back on my couch or keyboard and whinge. One vote, or my contribution may not make a hoot of difference, but a 1000 like me will.

Democracy is driven by those that contribute to make a change, the rest are just along for the ride.

<< If I donate to a charity or organization, it is because I want them to continue and expand what they are doing. >>

EXACTLY SM! You’re not donating for no reason! Same goes for big business and unions.

Hey, if everyone had the equal ability to donate… or to influence government in other ways…. then it would be ok and truly democratic.

But of course, we have a very highly skewed playing field. So it would be best if we did away with donations altogether.

Or, only allow very small donations. But we’d have to make sure that this didn’t get abused by big business, whereby they gift thousands of people each say $5100, on the basis that they then donate $5000 to a certain political party, or other corruptions of that sort.

<< Whether I donate money, time or materiel it is all the same. >>

They are perhaps similar but not the same. Big donations I imagine would be particularly good at swaying government decisions.

But yes, even if we were to do away entirely with donations, there would still be a very unlevel playing field in the manner in different interests could lobby and influence government.

Going to a donation-free regime would only be the start of any true attempt to make government more independent and better-representative of majority interests.

Ludwig,

It is my democratic right to get involved and support the party I believe in. This is accepted in all democracies, but you obviously have a novel position. Buying influence is another thing, but is unlikely for $5000 or even $50 000, the only reason for a limit was for labor to try and strangle the libs, which is far from democratic.

SM, where does supporting your party end and buying influence begin?

What is it exactly that you think is ‘novel’ about my position?

I'd be more concerned about the political lobbying of groups funded by government for that purpose and to get their vote of course. A good example would be the ethnic lobby where groups get a direct line to government via the relevant minister. No transparency there much of the time and all behind closed doors.

You could add to that the free podiums offered by the national broadcasters and particularly the SBS.

If you are at all concerned about sourcing political influence and its links with $$, no-one, not even the public bureaucrats themselves have even been able to figure the total cost of direct and indirect government funding of multiculturalism, or put towards indigenous, or the women's movement to take another examples of Goughisms that got entirely out of hand.

How much political effluent does Gina Rhinoceros have with the Coalition, flying the motley crew around in her private jet. What Gina wants Barny and boys will dutifully deliver, on time, every time.

Short memories. Can Gina do this:

Political donations
A few union heavies decide Labor leaders and have toppled a popular PM. They decide who gets the gig to represent seats and who is in cabinet. Their protection rackets rule supreme.

Ethnic lobby
They suck. Stuff all political donations from them. In fact the river of gold runs the other way while the ethnic tail swings the public dog.

Emily's List
So what that your electorate has put you up, here are the undeclared policies that suit US and we will work behind closed doors to put in place.

Loud laughter that private citizens throwing $5k+ into the hat of any political party will ever have the effect of those masters of lobbying power and political correctness.

Gough to thank for the powerful lobbyists that we, the Aussie taxpayers are obliged to stump up millions annually so they can lobby for more while swinging from the taxpayer's teat.

I didn't mention indigenous, but then they deserve a whole thread.

SM, further to my last post:

Where does our democratic right to support a party or a policy end and a perversion of democracy begin?

In the decades since Gough there is no bigger nor more sinister perverter of democracy than than the political correctness that has made a joke out of freedom of speech.

Although for raw brutish effect the unions are in a place of their own. Toppling a popular PM and installing the redhead usurper, then toppling her too and recently running a BS 'election' of Labor leader while loading the dice to favour Caucus and the hidden puppet-masters behind.

Ludwig,

"Where does our democratic right to support a party or a policy end and a perversion of democracy begin?"

The answer is simple, corruption begins with intent. You can have a corrupt "donation" of $100 or a purely altruistic donation of $100 000. The question is whether to ban all activity because of the 1% that is corrupt, or do you manage it.

I however, suspect that your motives are less than pure. Since the staggering levels of corruption have been exposed in Labor, the private donations to the party have dried up, and this is a cynical attempt to level the playing field.

Over many years in NSW the Coalition has enjoyed considerable gifts from the booze industry, the fag industry, the gambling industry and of course foreign and local property developers. Just take one look at the laws that relate to the above in NSW and there is no need to wonder why. Its been money well spent.

So SM, are big companies corrupt if they give big donations in order to try and sway government decisions in favour of their vested interests?

Or is it fair and reasonable for them to do this?

I can see it two ways:

Yes they can be thought of as corrupt if they feel that they are acting for vested-interest profit-motive reasons and they know that what they want is not really in the best interests of society.

Or no they can be thought of as not corrupt because it is their right to lobby and to donate with those sorts of motives.

Corruption can thus be hard to define as it concerns donors. But even if you think that no donors are acting corruptly, the net effect can still be a corruption of democracy, as it most certainly is with big businesses giving big donations which strongly sway government in one particular direction.

Ludwig,

Instead of posing theoretical questions, perhaps you could try the real world and give an actual example.

If you know of any corruption, then please take it to the police, and they can prosecute. Thought bubble possibilities are no basis for draconian legislation.

SM, I think we are having a very good discussion here.

I value your opinion.

The two questions I posed are highly pertinent to the subject at hand.

There is a corruption of democracy going on as result of the extremely unlevel playing field of the donations regime…. and other powers of persuasion that the big end of town has far in excess of those who hold different views.

But of course it is not recognised as corruption by the authorities, so reporting it would be futile.

I would love to know your thoughts on my two questions.

Ludwig,

A party is in the "business" of selling its ideas and vision for the future, the donations and vote is largely a result of businesses and voters "buying" them.

The donations fluctuate for both sides. Prior to the elections in 2007 labor was collecting far more in donations than the coalition, and even Murdoch's newspapers openly supported Labor. Now that for the majority of Australians Labor vision is bankrupt, Labor suddenly wants to change the rules by controlling donations and the media.

<< A party is in the "business" of selling its ideas and vision for the future, the donations and vote is largely a result of businesses and voters "buying" them. >>

That’s an interesting angle, SM.

I can’t concur at all. What you appear to be saying is that the philosophies of the political parties come first, and if they happen to appeal to those who can donate big money, then fine, if they don’t, then fine as well. Likewise with the voters.

It’s just not the case! A political party won’t introduce things that they think will work against them with the voters at the next election, no matter how much they might like to….

… and the same goes for their big-donations big-business buddies…. doesn’t it?

A party doesn’t just sell its ideas and vision for the future, it very carefully analyses what is politically tenable, both to the voters and to their big donators, yes?

What a party ends up ‘selling’ could be very different to what they would like to sell!

They are thus beholden to the voters and to the big end of town…. which can provide them with a great deal of funding if the party does what they want, or much-reduced funding and all sorts of other negative influences if they go against the vested-interests of the all-powerful big-business lobby.

Big-biz has got government (both major parties) by the balls!

Moving to a no-donations regime would only be the first step in addressing this enormous antidemocratic aspect of our ‘democracy’.

Ludwig,

Is your assertion that the major parties sculpt their policies to encourage donations based on real examples or is it simply your perception. Building legislation based on an unsubstantiated thought bubble is about as undemocratic as it is possible to get.

Unless you can demonstrate that your fears are genuine, then your remedy is pointless.

SM, in my opinion (not my assertion), political parties don’t just sell their ideas or vision for the future, they very carefully analyse what is politically tenable, both to the voters and to their big donators.

It’s not a matter of sculpting policies to encourage donations. But it certainly would be a matter of not implementing policies and that would have their big donators (or voters) deserting them in droves!

I don’t need to give ‘real examples’ in order to express opinions. Can’t you just entertain the debate regardless of whether you consider my comments to be an assertions, opinions or ‘thought bubbles’?

The Greens are at the forefront of identifying the ways in which large political donations distort and corrupt democracy. Those with money gain greater access and influence than those without, undermining the principle of one-citizen one-vote.

The Greens have taken a strong stand against corporate donations. The Greens feel that corporations already have too much influence in the political process, influence which has manifested in spectacular wastes of public money, and the restriction of rights and services for the people. Donations should come from real people, from party members and not from large corporations.

Thank Paul. The Greens’ policy on donations is good. They are very mindful of conflict of interest and of the risk of corruption incurred through donations….which the major parties just don’t seem to be concerned about at all.

http://greens.org.au/donations_policy

Ludwig,

By your measure the hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation from business in history.

But perhaps an analogy would help you understand my position. Nearly all abuse of pupils by teachers is by male teachers. Do you:

a) Ban all male teachers from the classroom, or

b) Acknowledge that only a small minority of male teachers are culpable and put in place measures to prevent abuse.

I believe that most business donations are not for favours, and that existing measures requiring declaration of large donations that allows scrutiny is sufficient.

"the hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation from business in history."
SM can you explain that one? What business? The Greens do not accept any business donations, only from individuals. Would you like to kick in?

Let me rephrase that:

The hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation in Australian history.

"The Greens are continuing to campaign for political donations from individuals to be capped at $1,000, despite Wotif founder Graeme Wood's $1.6 million donation before the last federal election."

Bunch of hypocrites.

<<the hypocritical Green Tea party>>

With the Green's it'd be more akin to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party

< By your measure the hypocritical Green Tea party must be the most corrupt, having received the biggest single donation from business in history. >

No SM. That’s oversimplistic.

It’s got everything to do with the intent of donations and the power of those donations to sway government.

The intent of Wood’s huge donation was honourable, not self-centred. The intent of donations from big companies is self-centred and not in the long-term interest of the country.

The overriding problem with the donations regime in Australia is that the vast majority of big donations come from the self-serving, profit-motive-driven lobby, which has greatly assisted in swaying government towards the insane regime of continuous rapid growth, both in supply and demand!

Yes it has everything to do with political philosophy. If donations were largely on the right (correct) side of the political arena for the betterment of our future, with sustainability at its core, population stabilisation as a fundamental part of this and thus a stabilisation in the demand instead of us constantly struggling to supply everything to an ever-rapidly growing demand base, then I’d welcome them all the way.

This is exactly the sort of political favour-buying that we need!

But for as long as they are almost entirely on the wrong side, it would be best if donations were kept very small, done away with entirely, or judged to be ethical before acceptance as with the Greens.

There is nothing hypocritical about the Greens’ policy and the acceptance of Wood’s donation.

continued

<< I believe that most business donations are not for favours, and that existing measures requiring declaration of large donations that allows scrutiny is sufficient. >>

I don’t know how you can believe this, SM. What does anyone give a donation for? If they are not looking for a favour by way of a change in policy, they are looking for a favour by way of the maintenance of existing policies. Or they are using their donations as bargaining chips to be used when their reps sit down face to face with the minister in discussions on particular issues, which amounts to the same thing.

Again, it is not so much a case of businesses being culpable of wrong-doing as they are entitled to lobby for vested-interest reasons, it is a matter of it all adding up and exerting considerable pressure on our decision-makers to have a strong-vested-interest policy platform.

Ludwig, a good example of what could be seen as a "political favour" is the Andrew Wilkie gambling laws and how Labor copped out
"Mr Wilkie accused the government of backing down on gaming reform because it had accepted the donations."

http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/gambling-interests-miners-big-donors-to-political-parties-20130201-2dq3x.html

Here in NSW we see big donations from the both the Alcohol and Gambling industries going to the Coalition. Then when it comes to tougher laws in these areas, these people are given unfettered access to the O'Farrell Government, and then, surprise, surprise, tough new laws, get a watering down so as to be acceptable to these vested interests.
Business are in business to maximise profits, not to give money away. They see political donations as part of that process, keeping in 'sweet' with the law makers

Ludwig,

Unfortunately you have just shot a big hole in your argument. You believe that this donation was altruistic, but you have no way of really knowing, and yet you are happily intending to block such donations to everyone else. When you make a law there are no exceptions.

All parties with MPs already get a huge whack after the elections based on their votes. On top of this there is already a very generous pay and allowances for staff, offices and travelling for both those in power and out of power, and donations are just the jam on top.

I know Labor would love not to have to go and sell the value of its ideas to business and the voters and simply fill the trough with taxpayer's money, but the coalition is prepared to work for their money.

<< Business are in business to maximise profits, not to give money away. They see political donations as part of that process >>

YES Paul. Well said.

What twaddle. What Paul knows of business can be written on the back of a bus ticket.

All major businesses have corporate responsibility programs that support charities, scholarships, community improvements and a small fraction goes to political parties. Given the high level of scrutiny in big businesses with respect to ethical compliance, the type of shonky influence peddling that the unions do is unlikely in business.

<< …donations are just the jam on top. >>

Oh come on, do you really think that, SM??

The crux of the problem here is that the vast majority of donations line up at one end of the spectrum of political lobbying…. and that they are very substantial, if not individually, certainly cumulatively.

Besides, donations from big business often go hand in hand with some pretty powerful direct lobbying, don’t they?

<< When you make a law there are no exceptions. >>

Perhaps there should be no exceptions. Or perhaps we ARE capable of making judgements about the appropriateness of donations, if we put our minds to it.

So SM, getting right back to the basic question - do you think Labor and the Coalition are more aligned to what big business wants or to what the general populace wants? Are they steering us in the direction that they want to go (when each of them is in government) or is there powerful forces that make them strongly adjust their philosophies and policy platforms?

Ludwig,

A short time ago there were allegations that Leightons had been involved in bribery, and its stock immediately fell by about 25%, and there is a risk that the company will fold if there is any truth to the allegations. The reality is that no large business would go anywhere near anything that could be perceived as a bribe as the consequences would vastly outweigh any benefits that could be achieved.

All I see from you is vague unsupported personal opinion. My opinion is that the problem you are trying to solve is largely imaginary.

As for the perceived unbalanced nature of donations, that swings both ways, it is not permanently favouring any one side.

<< The reality is that no large business would go anywhere near anything that could be perceived as a bribe… >>

SM, the institutionalised form of bribery which is inherent in the donations regime is not perceived as bribery by the authorities, the shareholders or the general community. It is recognised as proper and appropriate activity. So businesses are free to do it with impunity.

<< All I see from you is vague unsupported personal opinion. My opinion is that the problem you are trying to solve is largely imaginary. >>

Wow. That IS interesting! I’ve partaken in discussions on this topic on OLO numerous times. There are a lot of people who share my concerns. I don’t think anyone has ever expressed the view that it is a non-issue.

<< As for the perceived unbalanced nature of donations, that swings both ways, it is not permanently favouring any one side. >>

Yes it is! It is always very strongly on one side of the political spectrum – the maximise-profits-for-the-already-big-and-powerful-business-sector side and totally against the long-term-planning-sustainability-oriented side.

Donations swing around a bit from one major party to the other depending on which is most likely to accede to the wishes of the donors or which one is in government, but they certainly don’t swing across to the environmentally-oriented limits-to-expansionism stabilisation-of-demand side of the spectrum.

Ludwig,

You have your opinions supported by concerns of a lot of people you have spoken too. A shared delusion is no base for legislation. Unless you can provide more than a gut feeling for justifying this, no one will take you seriously.

I have dealt with several large businesses, and certainly no one would touch anything that even vaguely resembled a bribe.

Big business is not the bogey man that the Green Tea party would have you believe.

"What Paul knows of business can be written on the back of a bus ticket." Shadow Minister, and if that was true, there would be enough room left over to write everything YOU know on everything.
"All major businesses have corporate responsibility programs" If you believe that you do live in 'Fairyland', Why would the Australian Hotels Association give the Liberal Party of NSW $250,000 before the last election? If the the AHA really wanted to act the corporate citizen then they would spend the money combating thing like underage drinking, along with a host of other social problems their members help create in society.

SM, I’m really battling to understand your position. It is just so clear-cut that big business (and big unions) has a much greater ability to give big donations than any other sector, has a pretty united desire on what they want our government to do, and doesn’t hold back on pushing government to do just that, of which donations is a significant part.

I don’t see how you can consider this to be of no consequence or indeed to not be a fundamental problem with democracy. Afterall, the same sort of thing happens the world over in ‘democracies’.

Even if you completely disagree with my political philosophy of sustainability, with population stabilisation at its core, and you fully support the big-business never-ending rapid growth type of philosophy, you must surely be able to see that the profit-motive-driven lobby has enormously more persuasive power than any other lobby and that the inherent bias is enormous.

Big business is not the main bogeyman. Their lobbying and donations, which effectively bribe government and buy favours, is totally understandable within a system that allows it.

The problem is with government. It is with the system that allows this bias to exist and indeed to be so enormous… and which neither of the major parties is willing to tackle.

This should be of a critical concern. Not just donations but the overall persuasive power of the profit-motive-driven lobby. It really does make it nigh on impossible for any government to move decisively towards a much lower rate of population growth and hence a much lower rate of increase in the demand for everything, and hence towards a sustainable future.

I would like to think that in the absence of this factor, Labor would now be very seriously considering moving to a sustainability-oriented platform along the lines of what Bob Carr and Kelvin Thomson have been advocating for many years. But they can’t if big business goes against it…. which they would…. and basically stops donating to them and increases donations to the totally antisustainability-oriented Coalition!

continued

<< I have dealt with several large businesses, and certainly no one would touch anything that even vaguely resembled a bribe. >>

Ok, so why then do big businesses give donations to political parties?

Ludwig, I am not being cynical when I say this. Woolworths one of the largest and most successful businesses in Australia is in every respect driven by the bottom line. I know this first hand, and I'm not saying this in a disparaging way Woolworths are most likely no different to other large successful business in that regard. Every dollar invested is expected to return even more dollars to the bottom line. Money invested in a new store is no different to money invested in the community or in a political party, all are expected to make a contribution to profit and they do. Money in the community is only effective if you tell everyone about it, blow your own trumpet so to speak. Political donations on the other hand, well its better to keep them quiet.
This is interesting, during election campaigns, its not uncommon for Liberal candidates to go into small shops on the main road and give them a 'coreflue' to put in their shop window. Most will put the poster in the window as asked. In many cases as soon as the Lib leaves down comes the poster. Why? because the shop keeper is a raving commie, no, he's a Liberal supporter, but he knows at least 50% of his customers vote Labor and that poster could have an adverse effect on the bottom line. Now if the Lib asked for a donation, well that's another matter all together.
p/s I never ask shops if they would like a Greens 'coreflue', not even the Green grocer, don't waste my time, besides Liberal and Labor have so many they can afford to toss a couple of hundred in the bin, we can't afford to lose one at 10 bucks each. In a by-election I reckon the ALP must have put up 2 or 4,000 coreflutes, they had 2 pallet fulls and there wasn't even a Lib running, they must have spent $150,000 on their campaign to retain the safe seat, against us, their friends.

Ludwig and Paul,

You have both demonstrated that:

You don't like big business,

You don't like the coalition,

You don't like donations to the coalition, but you are quite happy with donations to everyone else,

You have shown that some companies give money to parties whose policies are less damaging to its business,

But,

What you have not done is show that there is even one instance where the coalition has changed its policies to get a donation. So why on earth can anyone take you seriously when you want new laws to fix a problem that you can't even show exists?

<< So why on earth can anyone take you seriously when you want new laws to fix a problem that you can't even show exists? >>

SM, you are asking a question without answering the question that I asked of you.

You answer mine and I’ll answer yours.

I asked:

>> Ok, so why then do big businesses give donations to political parties? <<

If you can demonstrate that they do it for entirely honourable reasons and have no intent to sway government decisions in their favour, that is: in the favour of powerful vested interests, and you can assert that there is no bias when a whole lot of big businesses give big donations, then you might be able to assert that there is no problem with donations.

Can you do that?

Ludwig,

I have already answered the question. The vast majority of businesses give money to political parties for the same reason that individuals do, namely because the parties reflect their views. Corruption occurs primarily when the donations go unregistered directly to individuals, as has happened with Labor.

With any legislation, there are always unintended negative consequences, and there is very strong argument against introducing legislation without clear evidence that it is needed. An immediate problem with limiting donations to political parties is that the political parties are not the only ones campaigning. Labor has the unions, Getup etc, all who are not limited in donations, political activity, or in the case of unions, using members funds for politics which according to your definition is corruption. Also there is nothing stopping a plethora of "organisations", such as Getup, springing up aligned to various parties, doing political work, and being exempt from the donations law. The only way to stop this would be to ban political activity by anyone other than the parliamentary parties. The cost of enforcement and compliance would be huge.

You have asked me to prove that no problem exists. The onus is clearly on you to show that there is one, and that it is sufficiently serious to install draconian and costly laws.

SM, this discussion is becoming circular. It looks like we can’t really progress it any further.

I’ll just say that we have enormously divergent views on this subject and that it amazes me that you can see no significant issue here, while I can see it (donations and the overall persuasive power of the business lobby) as being one of the most fundamental flaws and corruptions of democracy, which is very strongly contributing to a highly antisustainable approach to running the country.

I’m not going to go to the bother of hunting for specific examples of something which to me is to glaringly obvious. Paul has given us a couple on this thread.

Over the last two and half decades that I have been interested in population and sustainability issues, I have spoken to thousands of people in all walks of life. The vast majority have expressed concerns about high immigration and population growth.

Even when I was a member of Townsville Enterprise – my local chamber of commerce – most people agreed with me, despite them being just the group that has a strong vested interest in population growth in our city and region.

In short; it seems to me that the wishes and concerns of the general populace do not match the policies of continuous rapid growth that our government, of both persuasions, imposes upon us.

If one of the major parties could break away from this never-ending-expansionist mentality and head towards a stable population, it would win majority support at the next election for sure.

But the main thing that is preventing this from happening is the power of the big business lobby which has a huge vested interest in the maintenance of high immigration and thus a rapidly increasing demand for everything.

Ludwig,

The argument has become circular. You postulate that there is a problem that needs draconian legislation, yet are not able to provide a shed of evidence.

Having worked as engineer for decades, the basics of problem solving are:

1 Define the problem: collect the evidence, find the root causes of the problem,

2 Define the scale and consequences of the problem,

3 Review all possible solutions, their impact on the problem, the costs, and the other consequences of implementing the solutions.

4 Select the solution with the greatest impact on the problem, with the least costs to implement and the least unintended consequences.

Ludwig, you have merrily skipped all these steps, and declared that there is a problem that you cannot define or quantify, and proposed a solution with significant implementation costs, undetermined impact, and significant unintended consequences.

This is why I see your proposal as a knee jerk reaction to a thought bubble problem. If you want to be taken seriously you need more than you and your mates think it is a problem.

SM, I haven’t skipped any of those steps.

I haven’t defined the problem?

I haven’t stated how important I think it is?

I haven’t suggested solutions?

Done them all.

Crikey, I don’t know what you are reading in my posts if you think I haven’t done this.

Now, don’t you think the onus should be the other way around – on you, to indicate that there is no issue here?

This issue is as obvious as dog’s balls. Everyone I’ve ever encountered either thinks this or is just not interested. You are the only one has poo-pooed the very notion of there being an issue here at all!

You hold the unconventional view, which is contrary to that of the vast majority. Surely then, you need to thoroughly corroborate your position.

What we should be discussing here is how we best deal with the bias engendered by donations and other influences of the profit-motive-driven big business sector. How do we break the stranglehold that they have over government?

Discussing whether there is even an issue here or not is just too silly for words!

Define: = State or describe exactly the nature, or scope.

No, you have not defined the evidence for the problem, nor the scale nor consequences.

No, you have not considered the solutions and their impact or unintended consequences.

You have only given a vague hand waving description of what you think is a problem, and one solution with no regard for cost or consequence.

This is typical of Labor's thought bubble policy process, which is directly responsible for every policy of theirs being a complete stuff up.

Well SM, I’m sure that you, being a political animal, know full well that this is indeed a significant issue.

I think that your assertion that it isn’t is disingenuous.

So would you like to discuss how we might turn the political lobbying arena into a bit more of a level playing field? Or is this the end of our discussion?