Comments on: Surge in donations couldn’t buy a win for Howard

By: taust

taust — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

If we increase the proportion of public funding for political parties when wll their behaviour change to that of other people recieving sit-down money?

Perhaps the behaviour of the NSW parties would indicate that behaviour has already changed.

By: Jill Ruchel

Jill Ruchel — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

With the technology available these days, it is easy to make all political donations public. As Obama has shown, people are happy to give money - and ask their friends to add their support - if it's made easy for them and there is something to believe in.

It's just a matter of time before one or other party catches up enough to implement one of the readily available online systems for political peer-to-peer fundraising. And the experience of history is that who goes first does best. Whoever is serious about generating genuine grassroots support and relationships (and heaven knows all parties should be) AND gets in first, will have a real advantage, as long as they do it as well as Obama did.

If the Liberals and Labor don't watch out, someone savvy in the Greens will do it, and sweep the field.

By: David

David — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

As the register of Political donations shows, The Liberals took $25,000 from BAT and $35,000 from Philip Morris, which also gave the Nats $15,000, I await the screams of indignation and horror from Sen Feilding as the representative of families. He surely with his rightous, moralistic virtues will decry this acceptance of money from the murderers in the tobacco industry. They peddle a poison aimed in particular at young people, let us hear you cry from the mountain tops Senator, “shame shame on you Coalition parties”, or at least a squeak, as I fear you are more mouse than the other. If there was ever a person with double standards and an acceptance to bow before the might of the religous right its our own ‘Stevie Wonder’. One day we may yet hear the Senator speak for himself.

By: Colin Jones

Colin Jones — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Clearly “democracy” is in safe hands; those with the deepest pockets and forget about the riff raff outside in the electorate. Foreign donations!!Even the Americans draw the line on that one.
It will be interesting to see if the Rudd government adopts any of the reforms or just shovel the findings into the archives.

By: Bohemian

Bohemian — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

When Big Businmess and Big Govt get into bed together the people lose and ultimately pay for whatever shenanigans are floated.

No more donations from corporations or special interst groups including tax free foundations or any other bodies - political or non political. Let individuals people make donations tax deductible to a value of $100 say..The rest you can raffle.

By: Edward James

Edward James — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

The use made of donations should cut off one month before the ballot. Those amounts and who paid them to “influence the outcome of elections” should be published on line well before the polling booths open. Once again we are reading the history of dollars spent to influence the voting population years after the ballot has been counted and acted on.
Edward James

By: Stilgherrian

Stilgherrian — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Edward James is right. There’s simply no reason why this sort of data isn’t made available much more quickly except a lack of will. That, and the fact that the alpha geeks are far too busy making new “cool toys” than improving this rather handy thing called Democracy.