Comments on: Political incentives

By: Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » Banning political party donations

Andrew Norton » Blog Archive » Banning political party donations — Sun, 04 May 2008 01:08:57 +0000

[...] I last posted on political donations, the debate in NSW has escalated beyond disclosure to prohibition. The SMH [...]

By: NPOV

NPOV — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:29:20 +0000

Actually Terje, what I’d like to see is that the elected party gets no public funding. After all, funds are usually pretty easy to come by once you are elected.
I agree that parties such as the LDP deserve public funding more than most parties out there. But would they accept it on principle?

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 06:59:29 +0000

I’m sure they would all have endowment funds if they could find somebody willing to stump up the cash.

By: Stephen Lloyd

Stephen Lloyd — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:35:03 +0000

I always wonder why any political parties dont have some kind of endowment fund or something, and fund their activities from that, then they could actively refuse donations and claim to be more independent than other parties.

These new laws are nothing to take seriously when they regulate corporate donors but not the unions, Libs have a right to shout about it.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:41:30 +0000

For all your ideas on campaign finance reform, and for the 20 million people not invited to the Australia 2020 Summit, the online community created a wiki so people across Australia could post, discuss, and vote on the best ideas for the country. It’s totally a grassroots effort. It’s free, can be anonymous, and isn’t being sponsored by any political party, business, union, or special interests. It’s just people who want to encourage an online national brainstorming session.

The site is at http://ozideas.wetpaint.com. There are pages for over 20 different issues (including government reform) and even an online petition to get the best ideas heard at the actual Summit.

The more people know about it, the more ideas are submitted, and the better the discussion. It’s a great way for everyone to participate in the summit.

Jim
Wiki Creator

By: Fleeced

Fleeced — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:53:05 +0000

“The real area in need of reform relates to the money that flows from taxpayers to the political parties via public funding.”

Yes, I ran a facebook group on this issue prior to the election, and there were actually a few people who joined to object. Green Party members in particular seemed to have this crazy notion that ALL party funding should be public!

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:14:36 +0000

APL should have been ALP.

By: Terje (say tay-a)

Terje (say tay-a) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:53:47 +0000

The real area in need of reform relates to the money that flows from taxpayers to the political parties via public funding. We should only take money from people for the most serious of issues. Funding political parties is a lousy deal for tax payers. And the threshold test means that when I vote for the LDP they get no public funding but when my neighbour votes for the APL they do get funding (and candidate fees refunded). Public funding supports incumbants and is undemocratic.

If we are to have public funding of political parties then it should apply to all political parties and not just the popular ones. However the notion that political parties can get elected and pass laws that move money from government bank accounts to the private bank accounts of political parties, and that people should be so relaxed about it, is really something of a concern.

By: Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily

Club Troppo » Missing Link Daily — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:10:10 +0000

[...] whether donations by trade unions will be affected, while Andrew Norton argues that it’s the voters being bribed by the politicians not vice [...]

By: Ken Lovell

Ken Lovell — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:52:53 +0000

“… to minimise the number of decisions that give Ministers or their delegates too large a grey area where improper influence is hard to prove.”

Such transparency will also make it easier to uncover downright incompetence, which is a far greater concern than impropriety.