Australian party president wants to ban private donations

[Socialist Tera]

Liberal party state president Michael Kroger wants public funding for political parties

Political parties should be funded from the public purse, and there should be no private donations above $1000, said the Liberal Party's state president, Michael Kroger.
Mr Kroger, the Liberal warhorse who has been granted a second stint at Victoria's Liberal party presidency ahead of the next federal and state elections, said he does not support "private donations that are not disclosed".
Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger: "There should be no private donations over $1000 … nothing that brings ...
Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger: "There should be no private donations over $1000 … nothing that brings up questions about votes being bought." Photo: Justin McManus
"We should have 100 per cent public funding," he told radio station Joy 94.1 on Saturday morning.
"There should be no private donations over $1000 … nothing that brings up questions about votes being bought."
His comments come only days after Labor called for NSW Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos to step down following the Electoral Commission's findings the NSW Liberal party "concealed" the identities of major donors before the 2011 state poll, including via Liberal fundraising arm the Free Enterprise Foundation.
Based on evidence given to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in 2014, the commission concluded that the Free Enterprise Foundation was used by senior Liberal officials to offer anonymity to donors, including property developers, who are banned from donating to political campaigns in NSW.
The donations in question total $693,000.
Senator Sinodinos, who was the state division's finance director and treasurer at the time, has publicly lashed out at the Electoral Commission, branding its findings "flawed".
But senior party members, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and NSW Premier Mike Baird, have urged the party to comply with the findings.
"It's very clear that it looks like we have done the wrong thing, so we have to cop it on the chin, and we need to get on with it," Mr Baird said.
On Saturday, Mr Kroger was adamant he did not want another NSW situation, saying Australian society did not like "dark corners".
"We're one of the most educated nations in the world … and we like to know where the money goes," he said.
Mr Kroger was brought back as Victoria's Liberal president to change the "narrative" of the party in Victoria but he is considered a polarising figure within the party ranks.
Mr Kroger made recently made headlines after indicating he would be prepared to enter a "loose arrangement" with the Greens ahead of the forthcoming federal election.
When questioned about the Greens deal, Mr Kroger said "a clear majority of Liberal voters have no problems with us making preferences on deals with the Greens".
He said the preselection of former Australian Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson in the seat of Goldstein signified a "cultural change" for the Liberal Party.
"There is a view that we're an old, white male party. I don't criticise anyone for thinking that, because over the years we've allowed ourselves to be portrayed that way," he said.
"But if you look at the four inner city seats we have, they're represented by a Catholic, a young woman, someone of Jewish background and Tim, who is gay."
He said while Mr Wilson held very traditional Liberal views in terms of government spending, he hailed from the same "sensible middle" as Mr Turnbull and Victorian state Liberal leader Matthew Guy.
"He has a slightly more libertarian view in how we live in society … and is a reflection of the modern Liberal – he's not an angry young man," Mr Kroger said.

Source:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/no-pr ... z43zBJQ5Yr
What do you think about banning Private Donations? I personally think it is a good idea since private donations shifts politicians interest from helping the general public to helping the organizations and people who donate the money. Private donations cause corruption and problems in politics. Here is a source on corruption in private donations: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ot-realise
http://www.democracymatters.org/what-yo ... -politics/
I apologise for a lack of secondary source for the article but this is the only article I could find on the Australian senator.

[Costa Fierro]

Devil's advocate here but what if you don't want your tax money going towards the campaign of a political party you absolutely detest? If you are a dye-in-the-wool Labour voter, would you want your tax money going to pay for the campaigns of parties like Katter's Australian Party?

[AiliailiA]

Firstly I must say, it is amusing how many new threads about Australian politics have been started in the last week.

You really are political reptiles down there, aren't you? Almost nothing for three years, then a rash of these threads because it's "game time". Election season. The heat is on, and the reptiles get active.
-- End preface (which I hope does not cause offense). I will now address the subject.

---

Well it's surprising to hear this come from Michael Kroger. You'd think such an establishment figure of the Liberal Party would defend private donations, given the private-donation advantage his party generally enjoys.

But it all becomes clear when you consider that what he means by "private" donations includes donations from labour unions.

He wants to put a stop to labour unions putting money into the Labor Party campaigns. He wants it all to be "small donor", with small being a thousand bucks. Very obviously this favors rich individual donors, while shutting out any significant contribution from unions.

My opinion. It has been given.

[Donut section]

Personally id like to see a ban on wealthy individuals and organisations making donations.

But I would also like to have mandatory education sessions for people who choose to vote. So that they understand the issue they're voting on.

[Thermodolia]

Personally id like to see a ban on wealthy individuals and organisations making donations.

But I would also like to have mandatory education sessions for people who choose to vote. So that they understand the issue they're voting on.

There's not enough money in the budget for that

[Uxupox]

Personally id like to see a ban on wealthy individuals and organisations making donations.

But I would also like to have mandatory education sessions for people who choose to vote. So that they understand the issue they're voting on.

Mandatory education sessions for what exactly?

[Socialist Tera]

Personally id like to see a ban on wealthy individuals and organisations making donations.

But I would also like to have mandatory education sessions for people who choose to vote. So that they understand the issue they're voting on.

Sounds like ideological conditioning.

[Vistulange]

Yes. It's not a matter of "do you want your tax money going to a party you absolutely despise". That is an incredibly narrow point of view to have, in my opinion. It is a matter of keeping politics transparent and away from big business, or union, or any large interest groups' influence, as it is in the United States.

Parties need to get money from somewhere. Better from the state than from private individuals.

[Rusozak]

It helps in stifling money's power over elections and politics. What downside is there? If you can't raise the funds through public donations, that says something about how many people want you in office.

[Skyviolia]

Yeah but who wants to pay taxes to a party they don't support?

[Right Korea]

Yeah but who wants to pay taxes to a party they don't support?

Isn't the bulwark of democracy giving everyone a voice even if you don't agree with them? No one wants a party they don't support to field candidates, but we allow it because we want a system that is free to everyone.

Also, I'm American; so excuse my ignorance on Australia specifically, but I think my point stands in general.

[Jamzmania]

What an incredibly genius way to remove forever the threat of minor parties and challenger candidates. Anything to protect incumbents.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

Also, I'm American; so excuse my ignorance

These are words everyone likes to hear.

[Geilinor]

What an incredibly genius way to remove forever the threat of minor parties and challenger candidates. Anything to protect incumbents.

What? People can donate as long as it isn't over $1,000.

[Fusion Corp]

Yes, but we'd need to regulate advertising also, UK style.

[Jamzmania]

What an incredibly genius way to remove forever the threat of minor parties and challenger candidates. Anything to protect incumbents.

What? People can donate as long as it isn't over $1,000.

And incumbents, with their name recognition, connections, and party favors will have no trouble whatsoever getting funding priority from the party and small donations.

Someone new, however, such as an insurgent or other challenger to that incumbent's position will have a lot more trouble getting money. Unless they're multi-millionaires themselves. People lament the current state of politics and then advocate for policies which ensure that incumbents and the establishment stay in power.

[Vistulange]

What? People can donate as long as it isn't over $1,000.

And incumbents, with their name recognition, connections, and party favors will have no trouble whatsoever getting funding priority from the party and small donations.

Someone new, however, such as an insurgent or other challenger to that incumbent's position will have a lot more trouble getting money. Unless they're multi-millionaires themselves. People lament the current state of politics and then advocate for policies which ensure that incumbents and the establishment stay in power.

There is a state which does have private donations in abundance, you know.

It's called the United States of America.

It has a two party system.

[Jamzmania]

And incumbents, with their name recognition, connections, and party favors will have no trouble whatsoever getting funding priority from the party and small donations.

Someone new, however, such as an insurgent or other challenger to that incumbent's position will have a lot more trouble getting money. Unless they're multi-millionaires themselves. People lament the current state of politics and then advocate for policies which ensure that incumbents and the establishment stay in power.

There is a state which does have private donations in abundance, you know.

It's called the United States of America.

It has a two party system.

It also has federal campaign finance laws.

However, there are plenty of examples of challengers being successful due to large donations from fewer donators, primarily on the state level, where federal campaign finance laws do not apply. Reagan was an example of that.

[Vistulange]

There is a state which does have private donations in abundance, you know.

It's called the United States of America.

It has a two party system.

It also has federal campaign finance laws.

However, there are plenty of examples of challengers being successful due to large donations from fewer donators, primarily on the state level, where federal campaign finance laws do not apply. Reagan was an example of that.

Yes, and he was with the Republican Party. Not an independent. Actually, when you look at it, the United States has a ridiculously high rate of re-election for incumbents: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/house- ... es-top-90/

[Jumalariik]

Devil's advocate here but what if you don't want your tax money going towards the campaign of a political party you absolutely detest? If you are a dye-in-the-wool Labour voter, would you want your tax money going to pay for the campaigns of parties like Katter's Australian Party?

What about if you like Katter's Australia party and don't want your money going to Labour?

[The Conez Imperium]

I think there should be a cap on private donations but outright banning private donations might push donations underground and illegal. Not exactly ideal.

[Jamzmania]

It also has federal campaign finance laws.

However, there are plenty of examples of challengers being successful due to large donations from fewer donators, primarily on the state level, where federal campaign finance laws do not apply. Reagan was an example of that.

Yes, and he was with the Republican Party. Not an independent. Actually, when you look at it, the United States has a ridiculously high rate of re-election for incumbents: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/house- ... es-top-90/

One doesn't have to be an independent to challenge incumbents or the party establishment.

[Jamzmania]

I think there should be a cap on private donations but outright banning private donations might push donations underground and illegal. Not exactly ideal.

Again, capping private donations only helps incumbents who already have access to money. It would only hurt challengers. It would do nothing whatsoever to "get money out of politics" or whatever the justification is.

[The Liberated Territories]

Private donations are a form of free speech. But more importantly, this is a great way to give whatever ruling party unlimited access to public funds while quashing your poorer competition.

[AiliailiA]

I think there should be a cap on private donations but outright banning private donations might push donations underground and illegal. Not exactly ideal.

Kroger didn't say to ban them. His proposed cap would be a thousand dollars per person.

That would allow most people to donate as much as they were going to anyway, while seriously limiting the donations to the Labor Party from unions. Which is probably the point ...

Though in the context he may well be concerned about corruption of the Liberal party, or percieved corruption. Property developers aren't unions, they stand to directly profit from some government decisions and are quite notorious for buying influence.