<< 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?