Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion
Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 days agoPlease elaborate.
Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion
Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 days agoPlease elaborate.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 6 days ago
The bill seeks to make it harder for billionaires to buy elections.
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.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 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.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 5 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.
NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 5 days ago
Hey so there’s this idea people sometimes react with that if someone who is stupid or evil or whatever has some idea, then the opposite of that idea must be a good idea.
This is not a good way to think. While if you find yourself on the same side of an issue as your political enemies you should probably reflect over whether you’re being manipulated it is not necessarily true that you are.
Clive Palmer opposes this bill sure, he says for various reasons. That doesn’t mean those reasons are bad reasons to oppose the bill, or that the bill is good. LibLab are using the threat of billionaires interferring in elections to try push this through, if they are so confident it is a good bill why are they rushing it through and why do they both agree with it?
It is worth examining how this bill will function and whether the good bits are worth the side effects. LibLab are not champions of democracy, they fucking hate it lmao and they have enormous contempt for the public and minor parties so we should not assume they think this bill will lead to a better democracy.
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 days ago
Did you even read the link they posted? This is pretty bloody convincing evidence, researched by an independent and trustworthy body not influenced by fuckos like Palmer:
…org.au/…/new-polling-reveals-overwhelming-opposi…
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 6 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.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 days ago
There’s no universe in which it makes sense to pass a bill in a single sitting week which won’t take effect until after the next election regardless without allowing full scrutiny by independent experts. I’m not sure what more there is to discuss.
Seriously, your point of view here is fucking insane. Yes, the stated goals of this bill are laudable. We should be trying to minimise how much influence Palmer can have over politics. But not at the expense of minor parties and independents and in a way which reinforces the power of the major two parties. Any time a bill is rushed through this quickly, you should always be highly suspicious. You should also be highly suspicious of any bill that the ALP and LNP agree with but which smaller parties like the Greens and independents like Pocock disagree with. Doubly so if over 80% of ALP and LNP’s own voters don’t trust the process.
Have you even watched the video?
eureka@aussie.zone 5 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.
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.