| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: Why do we allow political donations? |  |
|
It was a rather minor bill in the scheme of things, but I'm sure a lot of people would have loved to see it passed:
https://twitter.com/AdamBandt/status/695023811930918913
| Quote: | | Lib & Lab just joined together to vote down Greens move to limit $2-$3 ATM fees at banks to real cost (about 77c) of providing the service. |
Maybe the major parties believe banks are entitled to make a profit on providing a service (i.e. allowing people the convenience of accessing their money through competitors' ATMs). Fair enough. But how can we possibly know that was their reasoning when both parties receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from the big four banks every year?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/28/australia-political-donations-parties
| Quote: | Party Donations: 2011-2012 financial year
ANZ Banking Group Limited : Australian Labor Party (ALP) 80,000
ANZ Banking Group Limited : Liberal Party of Australia 80,000
Commonwealth Bank of Australia: Australian Labor Party (ALP) 8,250
Commonwealth Bank of Australia: Liberal Party of Australia 1,500
National Australia Bank Limited: Australian Labor Party 68,400
National Australia Bank Limited: Liberal Party of Australia 118,250
Westpac Banking Corporation: Australian Labor Party (ALP) 53,597
Westpac Banking Corporation: Liberal Party of Australia 61,130
Westpac Banking Corporation: National Party of Australia 11,540 |
Honestly, what's the most benign way of looking at this? That big corporations somehow see it as their patriotic duty to fund our democratic process? If that's the way it's supposed to work, then sure: let's place an additional levy on top of corporate taxes and distribute it between parties proportionally according to membership (or whatever) to fund their campaigns.
But that's not what this is about at all, of course. These are donations that these companies' boards – committed to maximising profits and delivering for shareholders – enter into voluntarily, because they think it suits their best interests. What could their aim possibly be other than the potential of buying influence; leverage? And why would they keep donating in such quantities if their beneficiaries started acting against their commercial interests?
This is conflict of interest, pure and simple. When the Liberal Party and the ALP sit down to consider a bill like the one above, their decisionmaking process is immediately compromised. The same goes for any vote that involves donors' interests. That is not democracy. That is not the will of the people. It is policy for the highest bidder. That it happens shouldn't surprise anyone; that we continue to tolerate it is incomprehensible.
So, when it at best creates an image of murky backroom dealings – and at worst corrupts the democratic process altogether – why is it that we allow political donations at all?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Because we hate democracy and its singular advantageous feature of spreading decision making risk across the breadth of a population regardless of wealth or creed?
Because only the wealthy can be trusted to make rational decisions for the good of a nation?
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Unusually, perhaps, I agree with the thrust of this. Corporate donations to political parties should be banned or limited to nugatory amounts, and so should donations by charity and other pressure groups.
The question of how funding is allocated by the state to political parties is a vexed one, however. Is it right that the ALP and Liberal Parties should be funded by the state but a fledgling Green party would not be ? How do you decide ?
I'll leave aside the reflexive desire to increase corporate taxes, as it is a red herring. If it is worth doing via state funding, then pay for it out of taxation. then work out the right taxation mix.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^(  I think in this case it's your reflexive desire to represent corporations pro bono which made you even add that last bit...).
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | ^( I think in this case it's your reflexive desire to represent corporations pro bono which made you even add that last bit...). |
Nope, it was David who made the point and i just thought the red herring should be filleted. I've often proposed on here practical corporate tax reform that would see large multinats paying the share intended, so I'm not at all inclined to favour corporations on tax matters. It's just that if political parties should be publicly funded, then fund them publicly, not with your favourite whipping boys.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I raised the idea of placing a levy on corporations because I'm not exactly sure how this model is supposed to work. Is there a suggestion that the big parties would collapse without corporate donations? It is interesting that many of the banks donate roughly equal amounts to each of the major parties and sometimes the Nationals (though never to the Greens or other minor parties).
I'm happy for that money to come directly out of the public sector, but at the end of the day that's a small quibble given the fact that the revenue comes from taxes at the end of the day anyway. The reason I suggested a direct levy is that it seems like a great number of big corporations are already putting a certain amount of their budget aside for these purposes.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
