Donation ‘reforms’ are a scam. Politicians in bed together

Decades ago, I was warned that society should be on red alert by default when bitter collusion emerges between rival parties and politicians over how election dollars should be raised and spent.

But it is not just a matter of the major parties being more or less in bed together. Parties that are not very large are either indifferent or silent in their criticism of the law. This lack of criticism masks the harsh truth about the role of money in Australian politics.

Teals and Greens are happy passengers on the big-money gravy train. Let’s not forget this until Malcolm Turnbull It earned $1.75 million In 2017, he made the largest political donation in Australian history of his own money to fund his own campaign. 1.6 million dollars to the GreensIt was made by Graeme Wood, founder of Wotif, during the 2010 election.

Backed by big money from Climate 200, led by Simon Holmes à Court, the turquoises are the new-look big spenders in Australian politics. His efforts at fundraising reform have been more token than real. Teals have easily transitioned from accepting large donations while reaping the benefits of small community donations. This is the intoxicating effect of big money, an entrenched and addictive enabler in Australian politics.

How long do we have to listen to poker-faced politicians arrogant lies about making big money out of politics and stopping the fundraising “arms race”?

How much more evidence do we need that political donations are the greatest enabler of soft corruption? These are transactions that grease the wheels of democracy and erode trust and confidence in our system of government. This is a dark world of access and decision-making that must be stopped.

The so-called reforms presented to Parliament this week are a scam. They are a farce. The window dressing of reform perpetuates a tainted political system for those smart and cunning enough to manipulate it.

Look at some of the big monetary “reforms”:

• $20,000 limit on annual political donations per candidate;
• A $600,000 cap on political donations by individuals, organizations and anyone who wishes to participate;
• An $800,000 cap on campaign spending per candidate;
• $90 million cap on political party spending per election at the national level.

We call this making big money from politics!

Even the Center for Public Integrity, despite its opposition, cannot understand what big money is.

On top of that, under these proposals, the taxpayer subsidy formerly known as “public financing” would increase from $2.91 to $5 per vote in the 2022 elections.

What makes political parties and candidates deserve a huge taxpayer subsidy? Why should the unwitting taxpayer have to necessarily grease the wheels of democracy?

What politics needs is less money and more people. There needs to be plenty of Australians on the electoral roll who can make small donations. We don’t want a small number of Australians making huge donations. It’s bad for democracy.

There are also loopholes that have characterized changes in political fundraising and spending laws since this debate began almost 50 years ago. We need to acknowledge the “drafting anomalies” that make it easier and more possible for dangerous, backdoor political donations to be corrected later.

Really?

One of the most lucrative loopholes is that purchasing a spot at a fundraiser cannot be declared a donation. In the UK this was correctly called “state letting”. Sam Dastyari called it “pay to play”.

What about the most tacky, inappropriate and unseemly political money splash of them all: the 2023 Voice of Parliament referendum? The amendments to the constitution deserve higher respect because they block large sums of money and allow only modest fundraising by Australian citizens.

Extraordinarily, the raising and spending of money to change Australia’s constitution is not included in this or other legislation. What must be the most rigorous area of ​​fundraising is free for everyone.

In 2023, the Yes and No cases set the stage for the ultimate fundraising “arms race.” The focus should have been on the deep ethical issues that allowed the constitutional amendment to turn into a fundraising party. Instead we read about the who’s who of corporate Australia, private companies, high net worth individuals, family offices and foundations.

The fact that the unsuccessful Yes fundraising campaign outperformed the successful No fundraising campaign by at least two to one is not the point. The point is that constitutional reform can be left to the mercy of the highest bidder; the highest bidder, even if the cashed-out Yes case fails.

There is no defense in saying that big money donors are only doing what they have the right to do with their own money.

Leave that logic to business investing, buying a home, or betting on races. Voters, like trophies, are being guided down the garden path by players across the political spectrum. Under pressure from the major parties, the political class made changes that would appear to be genuine reforms in the way money was raised and spent in politics. They are not.

Largely unquestioning and often lazy, the media has failed to shed light into this dark corner to reveal the truth about political fundraising. What Australia needs are meaningful reforms to how money is raised and spent in politics.

Let’s start with:

• Restricting donations to people on the electoral roll;
• Prohibition All political donations by public and private companies and organizations, including unions;
• Cap donations at $200 per person, per election, and per jurisdiction;
• Introduce meaningful penalties, including detention, to stop the “harvesting” of donations.

If just 2% of the 17.5 million Australians eligible to vote donated $200, the proceeds would be $70 million.

Imagine hundreds of thousands of Australians donating a token sum of money to the political party or candidate of their choice. This would be good for democracy!

This is what Australian democracy needs. What we don’t need is a self-serving hoax about to be played out in the federal parliament, voted in by conflicting beneficiaries who are almost all on their way to making big bucks.

Have something to say about this article? Write to us at [email protected]. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. Crikey’s What You Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.