- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
The South Australian premier, Peter Malinauskas, has announced plans to ban donations to registered political parties, members of parliament and candidates. The state will provide funding to allow parties and candidates to contest elections, run campaigns and promote political ideas, according to the proposed bill.
Loans to registered political parties, MPs, groups, or candidates from anyone other than a financial institution would also be prohibited, it says.
To ensure new entrants to the political process are not disadvantaged, newly registered political parties and unendorsed candidates will be entitled to receive donations of up to $2,700, and will also be subject to a spending cap.
A person who knowingly participates in a scheme to circumvent the proposed donation laws could face a fine of up to $50,000 or up to 10 years in prison.
The bill proposes a restructure and mandatory application of the existing public funding model, including a reduction in the amount parties, MPs and candidates can spend.
Given that under the proposed scheme participants would no longer be able to fundraise, the bill proposes to increase the amount of public funding provided, and a system of partial advance payments, so funding entitlements are available to parties and candidates prior to an election campaign.
This significant reform is complex and may well be subject to legal challenge, including via the High Court.
Starting today, members of the public and other interested parties are welcome to provide feedback on the draft bill over a four-week consultation period via the YourSAy website. Quotes
Attributable to Peter Malinauskas
Since its foundation, our state has a rich tradition of leading the world in democratic reform.
In the 1850s we pioneered universal male suffrage and the Australian ballot. Half a century later, we did the same for universal female suffrage and became the first jurisdiction in the world to grant women the right to stand for Parliament.
Now, we are on the cusp of becoming a world leader in ending the nexus between money and political power.
We want money out of politics.
We know this is not easy. These reforms may well face legal challenge.
But we are determined to deliver them, with this bill to be introduced in the Parliament in the near future.
Attributable to Dan Cregan
These reforms are ambitious and, if realised, will ensure South Australia is at the forefront of protecting and improving democratic practices.
Banning political donations will not be easy. Sectional interest groups and lobbyists will fight tooth and nail to keep the current system.
No political donor should be able to buy a favourable political outcome in our state by donating to parties or candidates.
The hard truth is that public confidence in democracy is in decline. We need to take real steps to address that decline or risk falling into the extreme political disfunction which is playing out in other jurisdictions.
The hard truth is that public confidence in democracy is in decline. We need to take real steps to address that decline or risk falling into the extreme political disfunction which is playing out in other jurisdictions.
$50k is no deterrent to the real, powerful puppeteers. The only way this will get attention is if they actually throw people in jail. It may go a ways towards cleaning up local elections though.
But I like where their head is at. A small step in the right direction.
It says a fine or ‘up to 10 years in prison’.
I know what it says, that doesn’t mean they will actually put people in jail. In fact I severely doubt they would.
Making the fine a percentage of income helps.
I agree and I think almost all legal fines should be like that. You know what, if they did that and didn’t put a cap on it, that might actually give the millionaires and billionaires pause. But I still wouldn’t count on it since they usually have enough influence to break rules and ‘persuade’ politicians and judges.
10% income fine for somebody poor could mean the difference between eating or not
10% income fine for somebody rich can hurt, but they’ll still be VERY comfy
And that’s assuming loopholes are closed that let them have no income but be rich
10% income fine for somebody poor could mean the difference between eating or not
Agreed, so let’s work on programs that lift people from poverty instead of letting the rich off the hook.
Completely agreed. Just need to figure out how to get at the rich, since they like to keep people in poverty
Lure them to a BBQ with ground-floor options in a new private equity firm. You’ll be overrun with the rich bastards!
With brackets. 10% of income hurts somebody poor more than somebody rich (even though it still hurts way more than a flat fine. Also assuming looopholes are closed)
Loopholes will be found and be exploited. They always are. I appreciate what they’re doing, but on some level, it’s going the be playing whack-a-mole. Politicians are just too easily corrupted in a capitalist system.
At least they’re trying something, right? Better to play whack-a-mole than just letting the moles take over and turn your garden into a buffet.
As I said, I do appreciate what they’re doing. I just don’t have much faith in it working when it comes to large commercial interests.
Helps if they actually whack the mole.
Great! Now do one for judges. US has a great example to outlaw