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.