Greens suggest capping political donations to $1000 (1 Viewer)

[S4Saustralia]

Read article here...

TLDR:

Greens want to level the political playing field by restricting individual donations to political parties at $1000.

Summary:

• Senator Bob Brown wants to cap donations at $1000
• Brown being criticized for accepting Australia's largest donation at $1.6million before last election
• The policy does not appear to be targeting individual donations, but rather aims to prevent big business funding political parties.

I'd love to hear some thoughts on this...

 

[murphyad]

People ought to be able to donate however much money to a political party that they think is appropriate. The same goes for 'big business' - their interests are, of themselves, no less legitimate than any other group's.

If Bob Brown and the Greens were serious about retaining the moral grounding of their own policy, they would have refused to accept the largest political donation in Australian history, wouldn't they?

edit: Under these proposed changes I assume that trade unions will continue to be able to donate however much they want.

 

[S4Saustralia]

People ought to be able to donate however much money to a political party that they think is appropriate. The same goes for 'big business' - their interests are, of themselves, no less legitimate than any other group's.

I see the logic behind your opinion, but I can't say that I agree. Yes, a democratic society would allow individuals to give how ever much they want to whoever they want. But what about the parties that do not support the extremely rich, are they not handicapped by the extremely affluent who wish to donate millions to the campaign of a political party that supports their right to extreme wealth?

If Bob Brown and the Greens were serious about retaining the moral grounding of their own policy, they would have refused to accept the largest political donation in Australian history, wouldn't they?

I assume that you are calling Brown a hypocrite for accepting a donation >1,000 before restricting such donations for any political party. However, I cannot agree... Hypocrisy would be telling other parties they can't do it, but do it themselves. What the greens are calling for is for nobody to be able to do it, despite the fact that they were the single biggest previous beneficiary...It's really more selfless than selfish, (EG: "We know that we benefited from large donations...but we think that nobody, including ourselves should be allowed to benefit")

edit: Under these proposed changes I assume that trade unions will continue to be able to donate however much they want.

I really hope that Unions and large groups are also restricted, because that would defeat the purpose. However, even if all donations were capped, I still foresee a major flaw...What would stop an individual from running their own political campaigns for the candidate they support? Eg: I support Bob Brown, I use my extreme wealthy to promote Bob on television and run all type of propaganda.

ps: Catch-22 was an awesome book...the movie sucked, though.

 

[cosmo kramer]

i suggest capping all donations to the greens to $0

 

[SylviaB]

It's really more selfless than selfish, (EG: "We know that we benefited from large donations...but we think that nobody, including ourselves should be allowed to benefit")

Oh, so they donated the funds to charity then?

 

[S4Saustralia]

Oh, so they donated the funds to charity then?

No, you are not understanding what I am saying.

Pretend we are in english class together and the teacher says "S4Saustralia, I like your political opinion...have an A+, but SylvesterBr, I disagree with you...you get a B"

In this scenario, the teacher is the wealthy individual who offers support to the person they agree with and handicaps the one they disagree with.

To their statement I reply, "No teacher, even though you help me, I dont think you should grade us on our political beliefs...instead, why dont you rank us evenly and we will let the HSC markers decide who they like best"...I am being selfless. Not because I decided to give my rank to a struggling student, but because I changed the rules to make things fair.

This is what the greens are proposing.

 

[murphyad]

I see the logic behind your opinion, but I can't say that I agree. Yes, a democratic society would allow individuals to give how ever much they want to whoever they want. But what about the parties that do not support the extremely rich, are they not handicapped by the extremely affluent who wish to donate millions to the campaign of a political party that supports their right to extreme wealth?

Liberty is equally (if not more) important as democracy in our society. I support a society that afford individuals and groups the liberty to pledge as much (or as little) money to a political cause as they feel like.

You are right that a party which opposes the interests of the 'extremely rich' is not likely to receive donations from that group of people; however it is the case that such a party would have no trouble finding other donations from groups who also share common causes, such as trade unions. Every political party is supported by one set of interests or another, and it is a fallacy to demonise the interests of the wealthy whilst allowing other special interests to escape that harsh judgment. So really, your point is neither here nor there.

I assume that you are calling Brown a hypocrite for accepting a donation >1,000 before restricting such donations for any political party. However, I cannot agree... Hypocrisy would be telling other parties they can't do it, but do it themselves. What the greens are calling for is for nobody to be able to do it, despite the fact that they were the single biggest previous beneficiary...It's really more selfless than selfish, (EG: "We know that we benefited from large donations...but we think that nobody, including ourselves should be allowed to benefit")

To prevent this becoming an argument of semantics, let's find a definition of hypocrisy.

'Hypocritical' - "professing feelings or virtues one does not have": http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypocritical

If you call for an end to large political donations at the very same time that you accept a large political donation, you are proposing a case of affairs that is not reflected in your actions. You are thus a hypocrite. The Greens, by this definition, are hypocrites.

I really hope that Unions and large groups are also restricted, because that would defeat the purpose. However, even if all donations were capped, I still foresee a major flaw...What would stop an individual from running their own political campaigns for the candidate they support? Eg: I support Bob Brown, I use my extreme wealthy to promote Bob on television and run all type of propaganda.

It appears you have found a flaw in your own position. Furthermore, to forbid an individual from running their own, independent political campaign in support of an actual candidate would in fact violate our implied Constitutional right to freedom of political communication in this country - it simply could not legally be done. Aside from this, influential people or groups are able to court the influence of political parties in other ways, be it through post-Parliamentary job offers, media publications or even unsolicited donations. Therefore, I doubt that the donation cap would ever even achieve its stated purpose at all.

 

[S4Saustralia]

Liberty is equally (if not more) important as democracy in our society. I support a society that afford individuals and groups the liberty to pledge as much (or as little) money to a political cause as they feel like.

While I agree that liberty is important, I believe that it should be regulated if such liberty results in a handicap against a certain group of people

You are right that a party which opposes the interests of the 'extremely rich' is not likely to receive donations from that group of people; however it is the case that such a party would have no trouble finding other donations from groups who also share common causes, such as trade unions. Every political party is supported by one set of interests or another, and it is a fallacy to demonise the interests of the wealthy whilst allowing other special interests to escape that harsh judgment. So really, your point is neither here nor there.

Would you rather be supported by corporate ceo's and media outlets or trade unions? You cannot compare them fairly.

To prevent this becoming an argument of semantics, let's find a definition of hypocrisy.

'Hypocritical' - "professing feelings or virtues one does not have": http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypocritical

If you call for an end to large political donations at the very same time that you accept a large political donation, you are proposing a case of affairs that is not reflected in your actions. You are thus a hypocrite. The Greens, by this definition, are hypocrites.

Again, I dont think this definition fits Brown. He is calling for the restriction of all donations >$1,000. If he were to say "The major parties shouldn't receive large donations" and do the opposite, then yes, he is a hypocrite. Brown is playing by the rules, while simultaneously calling for them to be changed for everyone.

It appears you have found a flaw in your own position. Furthermore, to forbid an individual from running their own, independent political campaign in support of an actual candidate would in fact violate our implied Constitutional right to freedom of political communication in this country - it simply could not legally be done. Aside from this, influential people or groups are able to court the influence of political parties in other ways, be it through post-Parliamentary job offers, media publications or even unsolicited donations. Therefore, I doubt that the donation cap would ever even achieve its stated purpose at all.

I never suggested that I would restrict people from their own political campaigns and I agree that they will always find a way around the donation cap.

However, I believe that just demonstrates how fucked up the system is, and if wealth is an major influence to get elected...we are not living in a democratic society

 

[davidbarnes]

They should defiantly be capped at $1000. As is clear from the 1.6 million donation, the largest single donation ever received by any party which was for the Greens, they also stand to lose a lot of funding. We don/t want the Australian political system to degenerate furthur into the American System (i.e. just look at the congresswoman shot yesterday).

 

[Gallant_Gufeth]

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Yeah that nutjob shot 6 people over the terribly contentious issue of political donations.

 

[moll.]

The argument against corporations, unions and organisations being able to donate to political parties runs something as such:
1) These entities are not actually voters, so should not be allowed to try to influence the election results in any way. Much the same as we would naturally find a problem with the North Koreans trying to influence our election results despite not being able to vote themselves, the idea of another non-voting entity trying to influence the election should be similarly abhorrent. Obviously it's not, because generally the corporations and unions tend to act in the interests of the nation more often than North Korea, but even this notion would find significant oppostion amongst some individuals (particularly in the North Korean expatriate community).
2) If the company's interests really are aligned with the interest of the nation and one particular political party gives precendence to their interests, then no doubt the employees, shareholders and members will know it and will vote/donate accordingly.
3) It's not their money that they're donating. Often the decision to donate is made by a small board of directors or the union's executive committee whilst the members, employees and owners of the entities are not given a voice in the decision, despite it being their money.
4) If the executive board is so adamant on donating to the party, then there is nothing stopping them from doing so with their own money. Obviously they don't have as much to donate as the company/union does, but neither does the guy in the mailroom, Joe the union member or Steve, who bought a few shares with his christmas bonus. So what gives the board members' political views precedence over the others?

If it were up to me, all donations would be completely public and would be capped at somewhere between $5k and $25k for individuals, companies and organisations, regardless. They would be limited to Australian citizens, Australian listed companies or Australian organisations and would require a majority vote by the shareholders/members in order to approve the donation.

 

[murphyad]

While I agree that liberty is important, I believe that it should be regulated if such liberty results in a handicap against a certain group of people

Which it doesn't in this case. Political donations flow in all directions and leftist largesse is just as substantial as donations from more conservative types. No major party in Australia has any trouble finding money, so I fail to see where your 'handicap' stems from.

Would you rather be supported by corporate ceo's and media outlets or trade unions? You cannot compare them fairly.

Is that so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_donations_in_Australia

Unions are capable of doling out tens of millions of dollars in donations, just like businesses, business groups or wealthy individuals. There's no use crying poor over it.

If he were to say "The major parties shouldn't receive large donations" and do the opposite, then yes, he is a hypocrite.

hahaha that is exactly what he did. He said 'parties shouldn't receive large donations' and then gratefully accepted a large donation. If you can't see the hypocrisy in this then something is wrong with you.

I never suggested that I would restrict people from their own political campaigns and I agree that they will always find a way around the donation cap.

Which is why we shouldn't bother implementing one in the first place.

However, I believe that just demonstrates how fucked up the system is, and if wealth is an major influence to get elected...we are not living in a democratic society

At the end of the day, money does not buy electoral victory. Even in the US, where politicking is far more dependent on finance than in this country, California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman still managed to lose despite her campaign funding being the largest in American history.

 

[SylviaB]

No, you are not understanding what I am saying.

Pretend we are in english class together and the teacher says "S4Saustralia, I like your political opinion...

fucking unionised cunts

This is what the greens are proposing.

You said "but [they] think that nobody, including [themselves] should be allowed to benefit"

But they ARE benefiting by keeping that money. End of story.

 

[SylviaB]

We don/t want the Australian political system to degenerate furthur into the American System (i.e. just look at the congresswoman shot yesterday).

yeah by someone with severe mental health issues you fucking moron

 

[Lentern]

fucking unionised cunts

Nice to see you've lost none of your grace and nuance.

 

[Rothbard]

They should defiantly be capped at $1000. As is clear from the 1.6 million donation, the largest single donation ever received by any party which was for the Greens, they also stand to lose a lot of funding. We don/t want the Australian political system to degenerate furthur into the American System (i.e. just look at the congresswoman shot yesterday).

My god you're an idiot

 

[Rothbard]

Unions repeatedly spend an order of magnitude more on elections in Australia.


They also spend more than every other 'corporate entity' combined in the US. Go look at the opensecrets figures for the last US election.

Fucking lying socialist scum.

 

[cosmo kramer]

imagine being david barnes

 

[Rothbard]

My god you're an idiot

I cannot imagine what it would be like to be reminded to breathe.

fuck

 

[TheChairman]

You all do realise that Unions represent the people... They are the people, they are the voice of all working Australians.

Without the influence of the Unions you essentially have slave labour, where the boss can demand and pay whatever the fuck he wants, shit we had in the 50's. Shit were looking at going back to, because apparently we miss being treated badly.

The Union movement has given us Saturday's and Sunday's... Hell the fact that the Union movement exists has GIVEN US OUR BELOVED AUSTRALIAN WAY OF LIFE.

You people take what you have for granted. Having weekends, a respectable minimum wage, medicare. These things don't just magically appear. They took 100 years of struggle. 100 years of the people banding together to fight for rights... and what do we call it when people band together to fight for something... A FUCKING UNION MOVEMENT!

In the 1970's Whitlam brought in Medicare, colour TV, INDOOR PLUMBING IN NSW, A stable Australian motor industry. The influence of the Union movement gave the people what they wanted. It was government by the people, FOR THE FUCKING PEOPLE! THATS WHAT UNIONS ARE. They arent out to steal money, or take jobs, or pander to anyone... they are there to provide government FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE. But what happened... he was sacked... not because of his bad politics... because he was removed over the body of a dead man... HOW FUCKING SICK IS THAT... a man dies and the liberal theives move in. Stop supply, bankrupt the government... AND THEN TAKE POWER... its so malevolent and underhanded... how these people get any votes is beyond my comprehension...

The Liberal party is a party of theives and liars... always has been. Menzies sold Darwin to the Japanese... When Darwin was bombed, he covered up the deaths of many men, even to the point of forcing the surviving men there not to tell the public of what happened... these men were not allowed to speak of the horror brought upon them by their own government until around 40 years later.
Hell he didnt even want to be Prime Minister of Australia... it was his stepping stone to PM of England... and we gave this man the longest reign...

Back to the original topic though. Of course donations should be capped. Without capping what happens is you get parties that don't represent the people, they represent the money given to them. It's why if the Liberals get in power, no one will touch the tobacco industry, because Abbot plainly said "They are a legitimate business and i have no problem taking their money". There you go, a confessed action man supported by the tobacco industry.

Another case, the Kyoto agreement. Both America and Australia have had financial donations from oil companies for quite a while, until Rudd and Obama came into power in fact. Oil company donations mean, no signing of the Kyoto agreement. Hence why it took us so fucking long.

If you want government run by the people, for the people, there should be NO donations to parties. As soon as someone donates, they instantly want a return. As soon as the government returns they are not governing the people, they are governing to protect their bottom line and the bottom line of their investors.