Wednesday, 5 August 2009

The Network, Get Up, and Political Donations.

What a pity it is following the Malcolm Turnbull line.
Individuals could donate but corporates and third parties could not.

Harry Trigbuboff from here.

Harry Triguboff of Meriton has, until recent times, been an enthusiastic politic donor. Harry has donated huge amounts to the NSW branch of the Australian Labor Party. Yet, Harry is a true blue Liberal once hosting a fundraising breakfast in Sydney for John Howard with co-host Kerry Packer.

Now Harry has been doing this for years and I wonder if he can stop. Will he give as an individual? Will he find an undetectable way to show his support and affection for the political process? Mmmmm....?

I will support the Get Up campaign (and I hope you do too, dear Networker) in spite of my view that, if it gets up, it may still be rorted by the slick, the greedy and the powerful. Trusting, aren't I? I am supporting it because Get Up is also calling for public funding of elections -

Increase public funding of political parties.
Parties have become reliant on big donors to fund their campaigns and operation. If we are to eliminate the influence of corporate donations on politics, more public funding will have to be provided to parties. Depending on the system used and the level of funding, this is estimated to cost in the vicinity of $30 million dollars. This may sound like a lot, but international studies have shown that public funding has a positive effect on political competitiveness and decision-making. Given that the policies and private contracts our politicians oversee add up to tens of billions of dollars, we think paying a little more to make sure those decisions are free from undue influence is a good investment.

For further reading:
Please go to the Tag Cloud on the sidebar
of this blog and click on Political Donations.

MissEagle
racism-free
Photobucket

No comments:

Post a Comment

This blog does not take Anonymous comments. Experience shows that comments cluttered with "Anonymous" are boring and people don't know whether "Anonymous" is one person or many. This is not a decision about freedom of speech. It is a decision about boring or unwillingness to be known by even a pseudonym.

Total Pageviews