While other countries are seeking ways to control big money influence on government, Australia is preparing legislation to increase the corruption risk.
Most multi party systems tend to evolve into two major parties with the same interest in cementing their power and access to ‘entitlements’. The process generally ensures minor parties remain minor and unable to engage effectively on issues of doubtful ethics.
Using the two party rubber stamp, the Australian parliament is expected to lift the corporate donation requirement from $1500 to $10,000.
Read more at Pundit's Blog
3 comments:
Oh, good. I thought it was just the US system that was corrupt.
I never understood the legality of corporate donations to political campaigns. The US justifies corporate donations through a 19th century Supreme Court ruling that gives corporations many of the same rights as living, breathing citizens. Does Australia have a similar view of corporations?
To be honest, it was something I accepted with mother's milk.
My guess is that Australia inherited coporate funding from the British.
I'm not aware that the notion has ever been challenged in Britain or Australia.
Much of the Brit system is based on convention as opposed to wriiten (as in constitution etc).
Now you have me curious :)
Having a browse of the legals we have: In Australia, there is no single legislative provision governing corporate political donations. The Corporations Act 2001 contains no provision dealing expressly with donations, although s 19(a) of the old 'uniform' Companies Acts gave companies power 'to make donations for patriotic or for charitable purposes'.
There is relly no express law, as in the States. THe only case law I've seen related to a director or agent requiring permission of other directors.
What is interesting is that the tax funded campaign was sold on the basis of doing away with the need for corporate donations. Another con job.
Post a Comment