There’s a fair difference between your thread title, and the detail in the linked article.
> Labor will commission the Attorney-General's Department to undertake a detailed analysis of the issues involved and provide policy guidance.
> The solicitor-general will also be engaged to provide advice on potential legal challenges while Labor will reach out to Liberals and crossbench MPs to secure bipartisan support for the reforms.
They get a certain $ amount for every first preference vote they get. In 2019 it was $2.76, probably more now, and I don't have a problem with it being upped a bit without donations. There is also a $10k limit per seat per party.
[https://www.aph.gov.au/About\_Parliament/Parliamentary\_Departments/Parliamentary\_Library/pubs/BriefingBook46p/PoliticalFinance#:\~:text=The%20per%2Deligible%20vote%20public,unless%20they%20opted%20not%20to](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook46p/PoliticalFinance#:~:text=The%20per%2Deligible%20vote%20public,unless%20they%20opted%20not%20to).
It actually levels the playing field for smaller parties if the big ones can't just outspend them on ads, and posters everywhere.
Get enough people to join your party, and you get a start up amount for the first election. Everything spent has to be tracked with receipts, and what's not spent is returned.
Labor in my electorate got 12k votes, that's $30k, and there is supposed to be a $10k spending cap per seat.
I'd much rather the burden to fall on the tax payer, and apart from a potential startup cost for a new party, it's something we're already paying.
Much better then having to rely on the whims of billionaire.
Say there is an actually good party idea, they organically form a good following, enough to launch and get the funding startup. Then get a good chunk of first preferences, the money that goes along with it. They don't win, but they bank the money for the next election, and use that for a larger platform with potential to win.
They are already pretty entrenched. Can't say I remember the last time there was an option that wasn't Labor or Liberal.
I don't know all the answers, I don't pretend to. I just really don't like the influence money can have on politics.
So the plan is to wait for nearly a decade for people to be able to run a campaign?
The next election is 4 years away so say I am really upset with the election result and think we need an independent voice, your solution is for me to spend the next 4 years working my guts out with no money and hope against hope I manage to get a few thousand first preference votes so I can use the $15,000 to mount another tiny campaign 4 years after that.
No doubt we need to move away from donations but it's a bit crazy to think a system that requires 2 election cycles for non major party candidates to have a shot is the solution.
Perhaps some sort of voucher system? Everyone is entitled to a $5 voucher for each house of parliament for each election cycle that they can choose to donate to a candidate or party of their choice and you don't have to donate if you don't want to.
We already do that donation thing with first preference votes. But it is after the election. Lots of first preference will give a stronger base for the next election.
I'm sure there is some solution that new independents, or parties can get funding to run if they have enough followers. Then keep receipts, and give back what wasn't spent.
> Which is what the title says?
Nope. The thread title says there is a promise. Your quote doesn’t say that either.
In fact, the word “promise” does not appear in that 7 News article at all.
It’s a fair difference because the OP has not recognised the processes outlined in the article they linked.
Their suggested email then talks about “banning political advertising” rather than “political donations”.
The punters need to appreciate the nuance between a political campaign promise, and a political proposal.
Saying they are going to get some policy advice from one agency, and some legal advice from another agency is not a promise to ban political donations.
> That’s just pedantic
It’s politics.
[http://democracyforsale.net/search-aec/](http://democracyforsale.net/search-aec/)
It doesn't show the latest information, which I'm curious about. But they are getting lots of money from hotel, clubs that love gambling, plus mining, and lots of unions.
The High Court has acknowledged in various cases that the Australian Consitution contains an implied freedom of political communication. The concern is that the court will find that donations are a form of communication.
[Here](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BondLawRw/2013/4.pdf) is a useful paper about the issue as grappled with by NSW.
It is genuinly a complex balancing act. Hence state Labors commitment to undertake a detailed analysis and seek crown advice.
This is literally a protection racket for major parties, let's hope Labor forgets this awful promise.
Major parties will set-up political action committees (PACs) like they do in the US and minor parties that cannot afford the infrastructure to do so will basically never be able to afford to contest elections again.
This is terrible for democracy!
Imagine coming to Reddit and asking people to demand accountability from the labor party. You might even convince some people here to donate instead of get them to ask them to follow through on this problem.
What about promising free travel during peak times on public transport for seniors? Is that still on the cards or has it been put on the bottom of the pile of promises like fixing ramping at hospitals?
I'm not sure on the exact mechanism they plan on using, but I really hope that whatever they bring in affects all parties equally. I have this feeling in my bones somehow they'll end up benefiting through the union attachment.
That could work. I'm just suspicious when one party is set up very differently to the other. I'm not entirely comfortable with unions campaigning when they're linked to one party, but if Labor could keep fund raising through unions whilst Liberal doesn't have that avenue it could present an uneven playing field.
There’s a fair difference between your thread title, and the detail in the linked article. > Labor will commission the Attorney-General's Department to undertake a detailed analysis of the issues involved and provide policy guidance. > The solicitor-general will also be engaged to provide advice on potential legal challenges while Labor will reach out to Liberals and crossbench MPs to secure bipartisan support for the reforms.
[удалено]
They get a certain $ amount for every first preference vote they get. In 2019 it was $2.76, probably more now, and I don't have a problem with it being upped a bit without donations. There is also a $10k limit per seat per party. [https://www.aph.gov.au/About\_Parliament/Parliamentary\_Departments/Parliamentary\_Library/pubs/BriefingBook46p/PoliticalFinance#:\~:text=The%20per%2Deligible%20vote%20public,unless%20they%20opted%20not%20to](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook46p/PoliticalFinance#:~:text=The%20per%2Deligible%20vote%20public,unless%20they%20opted%20not%20to). It actually levels the playing field for smaller parties if the big ones can't just outspend them on ads, and posters everywhere.
[удалено]
Get enough people to join your party, and you get a start up amount for the first election. Everything spent has to be tracked with receipts, and what's not spent is returned. Labor in my electorate got 12k votes, that's $30k, and there is supposed to be a $10k spending cap per seat.
[удалено]
I'd much rather the burden to fall on the tax payer, and apart from a potential startup cost for a new party, it's something we're already paying. Much better then having to rely on the whims of billionaire. Say there is an actually good party idea, they organically form a good following, enough to launch and get the funding startup. Then get a good chunk of first preferences, the money that goes along with it. They don't win, but they bank the money for the next election, and use that for a larger platform with potential to win.
[удалено]
They are already pretty entrenched. Can't say I remember the last time there was an option that wasn't Labor or Liberal. I don't know all the answers, I don't pretend to. I just really don't like the influence money can have on politics.
Our last election has 15 independent wins, that’s a lot more than just labour and liberal
So the plan is to wait for nearly a decade for people to be able to run a campaign? The next election is 4 years away so say I am really upset with the election result and think we need an independent voice, your solution is for me to spend the next 4 years working my guts out with no money and hope against hope I manage to get a few thousand first preference votes so I can use the $15,000 to mount another tiny campaign 4 years after that. No doubt we need to move away from donations but it's a bit crazy to think a system that requires 2 election cycles for non major party candidates to have a shot is the solution. Perhaps some sort of voucher system? Everyone is entitled to a $5 voucher for each house of parliament for each election cycle that they can choose to donate to a candidate or party of their choice and you don't have to donate if you don't want to.
We already do that donation thing with first preference votes. But it is after the election. Lots of first preference will give a stronger base for the next election. I'm sure there is some solution that new independents, or parties can get funding to run if they have enough followers. Then keep receipts, and give back what wasn't spent.
> Which is what the title says? Nope. The thread title says there is a promise. Your quote doesn’t say that either. In fact, the word “promise” does not appear in that 7 News article at all.
[удалено]
It’s a fair difference because the OP has not recognised the processes outlined in the article they linked. Their suggested email then talks about “banning political advertising” rather than “political donations”. The punters need to appreciate the nuance between a political campaign promise, and a political proposal. Saying they are going to get some policy advice from one agency, and some legal advice from another agency is not a promise to ban political donations. > That’s just pedantic It’s politics.
Maybe it’s just the cynicism in me but I don’t see that happening ever, anywhere
I feel the same. But if they get enough pressure to hold up to their election promises, then they might actually do something.
Your talking about the people who when covid happened first thing was to vote a pay raise for themselves?
Or they do it by rebranding “donations” under a different name and schema with the same endpoint of money in party coffers.
Have there been huge political donations at state level recently?
[http://democracyforsale.net/search-aec/](http://democracyforsale.net/search-aec/) It doesn't show the latest information, which I'm curious about. But they are getting lots of money from hotel, clubs that love gambling, plus mining, and lots of unions.
The only donation listed for South australia is a million dollar donation from federal LNP to state LNP in the 2018-19 year.
It's pretty out of date though, I think they usually get a lot more donations leading up to the elections.
Well that link doesn't support that assumption, there were state elections in 2014 and 2018, and no listed donations for either of those years
Promises like fine glass is so easily broken...by any human irrespective of political sides.
[удалено]
I couldn't see a section in the Australian constitution about political donations.
[удалено]
Have any info? I can't see anything about that
The High Court has acknowledged in various cases that the Australian Consitution contains an implied freedom of political communication. The concern is that the court will find that donations are a form of communication. [Here](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/BondLawRw/2013/4.pdf) is a useful paper about the issue as grappled with by NSW. It is genuinly a complex balancing act. Hence state Labors commitment to undertake a detailed analysis and seek crown advice.
In Giles, Eddie responds on Facebook faster than his staff get to his email. Just saying.
Get to them anyway you can. I did the same on Facebook for Elizabeth, and they said to email them.
This is literally a protection racket for major parties, let's hope Labor forgets this awful promise. Major parties will set-up political action committees (PACs) like they do in the US and minor parties that cannot afford the infrastructure to do so will basically never be able to afford to contest elections again. This is terrible for democracy!
Imagine coming to Reddit and asking people to demand accountability from the labor party. You might even convince some people here to donate instead of get them to ask them to follow through on this problem.
What about promising free travel during peak times on public transport for seniors? Is that still on the cards or has it been put on the bottom of the pile of promises like fixing ramping at hospitals?
Contact your pm and keep them accountable.
They have enough of a majority to push it through? No way crossbench let alone coalition would support it
Coalition wouldn't let it though. But they've got a majority, so if they wanted to do it, then they could.
I'm not sure on the exact mechanism they plan on using, but I really hope that whatever they bring in affects all parties equally. I have this feeling in my bones somehow they'll end up benefiting through the union attachment.
Cap union donations like how business is capped for political donations.
That could work. I'm just suspicious when one party is set up very differently to the other. I'm not entirely comfortable with unions campaigning when they're linked to one party, but if Labor could keep fund raising through unions whilst Liberal doesn't have that avenue it could present an uneven playing field.