Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion

• Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Please elaborate.

  source

  • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The bill seeks to make it harder for billionaires to buy elections.

    • It caps individual donations to $20,000/year
    • It forces real time disclosures of donations of $1000 or more.
    • campaign spending is capped to $800k/seat and $90 million/party

    It is a fantastic bill that makes it harder for the rich to steal elections. That’s why this literal Coal Barron hates the bill:

    Image

    Yeah, right. Regular Australians harmed by an $800k spending limit. Ridiculous.

    source

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      You don’t see how it’s beneficial to the big parties and very harmful to independents to have parties be able to amortise their advertising spend across all the seats they’re running in, where an independent candidate is stuck at the limit for a single seat?

      But more to the point: you don’t think it’s problematic to be trying to rush through the legislation without giving it time to undergo proper rigorous scrutiny? Even if its goals are just, if the method by which it’s being achieved is not transparent, how can we trust their intentions? Especially if both Labor and the LNP are on board. That is what’s ridiculous.

      source

      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        It occurs to me that your response is identical to that of the evil billionaire Clive Palmer. I think this whole thread might be pure astroturf. I’m out.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        There’s no universe in which it makes sense to allow billionaire coal barons to buy elections, for “independent” parties or otherwise. I’m not sure what more there is to discuss.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • eureka@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      This reply doesn’t explain how “she’s being dishonest”. That’s a strong claim. In fact, you’re repeating some of the points made in the video.

      A bill can have benefits but fail to achieve its stated goals. The fact that this bill could frustrate the influence rich like Palmer is progress, as mentioned in the video, but the video also interprets apparent issues with those annual limits (individual donations to multiple branches of the same party, caps are annual and reset after elections) raise those limits in practice above those stated - an individual can donate $20,000 a year to branches in each state for each year, effectively raising it to $540,000 per typical election cycle to parties with a nation-wide party structure (e.g. Liberal Party, Labor Party). A cap is good in theory, but that cap is excessively high for large parties, does not adequately address the issues of big money in politics, has a clear bias against small parties (both in the aforementioned points and also in other aspects of the bill), and therefore should not be accepted if this interpretation is correct. (As stated in the video, it’s hard to be confident in interpretations since the bill is complex and being rushed through after closed-door discussions.)

      For what it’s worth, I don’t think Palmer themself is really a threat in the grand scheme of things. They’re a pathetic waste. I’m far more concerned about the owning class propping up the Liberal Party, who will collectively benefit from this legislation, in fact I’m more concerned about the Labor Party than the UAP.

      Yeah, right. Regular Australians harmed by an $800k spending limit. Ridiculous.

      Many of the parties I voted for are harmed by letting that limit be so high. Most parties are harmed by that limit being so high.

      source