Campaign xenophobia driven by foreign donations ban
Almost everyone in mainstream politics says they oppose xenophobia, but foreigners have few friends among advocates of campaign finance reform.
In introducing Labor’s third attempt to ban foreign-sourced donations, Special Minister of State Gary Gray said late last year that prohibiting foreign donations would help “remove a perception that foreign donors could exert influence over the Australian political process”.
Queensland already restricts foreign-sourced donations. And NSW goes much further, banning all non-citizens from donating to political parties or third parties for state election campaign purposes.
But these distinctions between “foreigners” and Australians are too blurred and too dubious to support these laws.
Under actual Queensland and proposed federal laws, foreigners can still donate so long as they use an Australian bank account. But these laws will prevent donations from expatriate Australians without an Australian bank account or credit card.
My examination of Australian Electoral Commission overseas donor returns found that more than half came from individuals with publicly reported Australian citizenship or companies they control. These people have a legitimate link to Australia that no law should diminish.
That leaves a smaller group of non-Australian overseas donors as possibly dangerous foreign influences. The most frequently cited example is British Conservative businessman Lord Michael Ashcroft, who gave $1 million to the Liberal Party during the Howard years. Ashcroft’s gift appears motivated by ideology and personal connections; he has few financial interests in Australia.
Any influence was only via more campaign advertising for the Liberals. This gives Ashcroft less direct influence on Australian politics than the foreign ideas and views imported every day via television, radio, the internet, newspapers, magazines and books. Prohibiting just one form of foreign influence seems arbitrary.
NSW law that started on January 1 also prevents expatriate Australians from donating, if their electoral enrolment has lapsed. But perhaps more concerning is that because only citizens can enrol to vote, permanent and temporary residents in NSW lose their right to donate. NSW gains about 60,000 new permanent residents a year, out of an Australian total of about 200,000. And about another 1 million people live in Australia on a temporary but long-term basis.
There is no obvious rationale for restricting the political rights of non-citizens in this way. They live here, study here, pay taxes here. Sometimes they seek political remedies for their problems, such as international students who have been mistreated.
They should have the right to do so. Yet in some circumstances, non-citizens could break campaign finance law if they give money to their own representative organisations.
When many overseas-born people live in Australia, and many Australian-born people live overseas, and many issues cross national boundaries, a ban on “foreign” donations does not reflect contemporary realities. The problems these bans will cause are far more obvious than the problems they will solve.
*Andrew Norton is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. His report Democracy and Money: The Dangers of Campaign Finance Reform was released by the Centre for Independent Studies on June 2.
The term ‘xenophobia’ is misused here. Phobias generally refer to irrational fears or fearful sataes of mind. It’s impossible for anyone to for or against a thing wich occurs only in the mind of the individual. I’m pro arachnophobia but anti hydrophobia.
Also, the article seems to imply that everyone who makes a donation to a political party does so in order to gain influence. I hope that’s not the case. Perhaps this legislation could be altered to only affect large donations.
Political party donations ought to be sourced, exclusively, from voters. It is voters who (in an ideal world) elect the representatives to form a government; yet, as a question of practiciality, it is money, irrespective of where it is sourced.
Ban donations completely. I can’t say I’d miss the ads.
The CIS has some fairly strict rules about donations itself, and interesting names for the various fellowship levels.
Quote: “…because only citizens can enrol to vote, permanent and temporary residents in NSW lose their right to donate.”
If you are not on the electoral role and thus eligible to vote, you have no business, certainly no “right” to express an opinion about an election, let alone to directly interfere via donation or personal exertion or public statement.
As far as I am concerned, foreign, corporate, union-based and other organisational donations should be absolutely banned. Only donations specifically made by electors should be permitted… no trust funds, corporations, etc, unless they represent groups of electors and include a membership requirement that, unless you are an elector, you are ineligible to join.
Similarly, I see no reason for permitting foreign-owned news media to provide public comment, and for the remaining media to publish only comment from journalists who are enrolled as electors.
No iffs, no buts. No excuses. No non-elector shareholders, no corporate shareholders. They should be required to respect OUR right to conduct OUR elections in OUR way, using OUR resources.
News Ltd, take note.
Think again, CIS.
@ John: non-citizens have no right to express an opinion about an election? I hope that’s not what you meant to say.
@ Ksull:
The references to citizenship was not mine, it is part of a direct quotation.
Non-electors have no skin in the game, no part in the outcome and no rights to interfere.
As visitors, outsiders, guests, whatever, they should have the courtesy to keep their mouths shut.
If they don’t understand courtesy, then regulations should spell it out for them.
Two examples:
1. In 1975, my Danish boss asked each of his 50+ staff to come to his office, one at a time, to hear his demand that we must vote against Whitlam’s re-election. My comment was to the effect that (a) With respect, it is none of his business; and (b) If his was grated, then the engineering consultancy which he headed would run out of work PDQ. Our work was primarily on public buildings, hospitals, schools, very large and very small. The election was in December 1975. Very soon afterwards, I advised that I would have nothing more to design unless new contracts were obtained. We parted company, very amicably, 3 months later, about when the work ran out.
2. A few years earlier, I had applied for a position in a large international engineering firm engaged in design and fabrication of Bass Straight drilling platforms for BHP. I declined to answer, at the second stage of the process, a question as to whether I had “ever advocated the overthrow of the US Government by other than constitutional means”. That was downright offensive then and is still offensive years later. Of course, I had never advocated the overthrow of any government, US or other, by any means other than through the ballot box. NOTE: That was before Bush showed the world how it is done in Florida.
Non-nationals have absolutely no right to insert themselves into the domestic political discussion in these or any other manner. For similar reasons, there is no “right” of anybody outside even as insignificant as a cricket club to try to influence the outcome of their internal election process, let alone at State or Federal Government level.
I can conceive of no need for exceptions or wavering on this. Either the election under consideration involves you or it does not. Those for whom it does not should display their high respect for the actual electors and for the democratic process, as well as for the country/organisation in which they are a guest, a visitor, by keeping their opinions and their funds to themselves.