Why do democracies allow political donations?

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The morally bankrupt Australian government recently reformed our Elections Act, against the advice of the Australian Electoral Commission, the independent body that runs our elections.

The worst change was to allow anonymous donations of up to $10,000 in each state and territory, effectively allowing anonymous donors to give $90,000 to a party without disclosing their identity. In a country the size of Australia, that is a sizable wad of undeclared election cash.

The figures show, in both Australia and the US, that the conservative parites recieve far more donations than their opponents. Didn't the Republicans spend 3-4 times what the Democrats spent during the last Presidential election?

So my question is, why allow donations at all??? Why not accept the burden as taxpayers, set funding by formula, and give X to each party? It would be a lot fairer than one side running 3x as many ads as the other, and thus exerting far more influence over peoples' vote.

Comments?

[Obstructed_View]

So you don't want to allow donations simply because one party is better at raising money than the other? If I have 90 thousand dollars to give, why can't I give it to a candidate? It's anonymous so the candidate's policies cannot in theory be influenced by my money.

[E20]

I sort of disagree with you. I think that political parties can use any legal means of raising up money wheter it be donations from friends or telethons. :lol

Also, See ENRON.
Most private donations are from CEO's of companies that wish to gain some advantage or goal with elected politicians in the Goverment regarding the economy and/or buisness affairs.

[Obstructed_View]

See ENRON.

Most private donations are from CEO's of companies that wish to gain some advantage or goal with elected politicians in the Goverment regarding the economy and/or buisness affairs.
Really? How do you know that?

[ChumpDumper]

Anonymous to whom?

[E20]

Really? How do you know that?
I took a wild stab at it. :lol

[Extra Stout]

The figures show, in both Australia and the US, that the conservative parites recieve far more donations than their opponents. Didn't the Republicans spend 3-4 times what the Democrats spent during the last Presidential election?
Actually, I believe the Democrats may have slightly outspent the Republicans last time around.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

So you don't want to allow donations simply because one party is better at raising money than the other? If I have 90 thousand dollars to give, why can't I give it to a candidate? It's anonymous so the candidate's policies cannot in theory be influenced by my money.

Elections are not a contest to see who is better at raising money, so your point is specious. One party represents the interests of the rich, so of course they will be able to donate more.

Why are you afraid of a fair fight?

The money is anonymous in that the donator does not have to declare their identity to the Electoral Commission - of course, the party that recieves the donation knows exactly who it comes from, and favours are distributed accordingly.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Actually, I believe the Democrats may have slightly outspent the Republicans last time around.

It's hard to find a conclusive figure on, but Bush outspent Kerry by $40mil according to this site:

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp

[101A]

The morally bankrupt Australian government recently reformed our Elections Act, against the advice of the Australian Electoral Commission, the independent body that runs our elections.

The worst change was to allow anonymous donations of up to $10,000 in each state and territory, effectively allowing anonymous donors to give $90,000 to a party without disclosing their identity. In a country the size of Australia, that is a sizable wad of undeclared election cash.

The figures show, in both Australia and the US, that the conservative parites recieve far more donations than their opponents. Didn't the Republicans spend 3-4 times what the Democrats spent during the last Presidential election?

So my question is, why allow donations at all??? Why not accept the burden as taxpayers, set funding by formula, and give X to each party? It would be a lot fairer than one side running 3x as many ads as the other, and thus exerting far more influence over peoples' vote.

Comments?


Wouldn't it take laws to make this come to pass?

Wouldn't the currently elected officials (the ones who will be running for reelection soon) be the individuals to draft and vote on those laws?

You think whatever that scheme is might favor incumbents?

[101A]

One party represents the interests of the rich...

...and one party is grotesquely populous, race and class bating...should the "rich" just roll over and let the majority rape them?

[101A]

Why are you afraid of a fair fight?


A fair fight?

"I will only tax the top 10% of wage earners - the rest of you will get a rebate." = 90% of the vote because, ultimately, people are self interested.

Something has to be done to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

[DarkReign]

Something has to be done to protect against the tyranny of the majority.

You dont hear that very often. Morlocks and Eloi.

[101A]

You dont hear that very often. Morlocks and Elois.


Assuming sarcasm; please help with the reference.

[DarkReign]

Assuming sarcasm; please help with the reference.

No sarcasm. I seriously dont hear that very often.

Novel written by H.G Wells called The Time Machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine)

Long story short...

Eloi = "the haves"
Morlocks = "the have-nots"

Far into the future, Morlocks live undergound and mutated in some way. The Eloi live on the surface, near paradise, no work, just love, etc.
The Morlocks outnumber the Eloi by a very wide margin.

But there is a truce. The Morlocks eat Eloi. The Eloi must sacrifice one of their own every so often. If not, the Morlocks will rise up and kill them all.

It was Wells' analogy of the current trend in the American class system circa 1890. In other cultures with declared class systems, the lower classes never had illusions about what they are and what they can become. Things only got ugly when the lower classes were starving (usually a good way to piss someone off).

In America, the land of opportunity, everyone is equal. Everyone can be anything. But as always, the cream always rises to the top. The top makes all decisons for the bottom. This sort of system never lasts. The 'bottom' eventually becomes tired of being run over for the 'top's' gain.

[101A]

DR, thanks for the information, gonna have to read that (I actually have it in an HG Wells compilation book on my shelves).

[DarkReign]

yeah the latest remake of the time machine movie sucked

Absolutely true. Aussies be damned already! Ledger, Crowe and Gibson are the only good ones. Oh, and Kidman.

[Obstructed_View]

Why are you afraid of a fair fight?
The more appropriate question is, why aren't you? As James Madison said: "Extend (the right of suffrage) equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice." Since restricting voting rights to landowners, or even taxpayers, is out of the question, there has to be something to tip the balance. I don't like it any more than you do, so if you come up with something better, I'm all ears.

Since I'm quoting people, here are two more from Winston Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
-- Winston Churchill

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-- Winston Churchill

[DarkReign]

The more appropriate question is, why aren't you? As James Madison said: "Extend (the right of suffrage) equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice."

Are you seriously using that quote as a point? It is obviously bigoted and biased in comparison to todays standards.

The people below landowners are, in fact, people contrary to popular belief.

The majority rules. It always will. It may lie dormant, but sooner than later those individuals will tire of the ruling elite.

See "Tale of Two Cities". War and Peace. etc, etc.

[Obstructed_View]

Are you seriously using that quote as a point? It is obviously bigoted and biased in comparison to todays standards.

The people below landowners are, in fact, people contrary to popular belief.

The majority rules. It always will. It may lie dormant, but sooner than later those individuals will tire of the ruling elite.

See "Tale of Two Cities". War and Peace. etc, etc.
There's nothing bigoted about that quote, and shame on you for suggesting so. The only thing obvious is that you will make conclusions before you do your own research. Madison's speech had to do with balancing voting rights to best preserve everyone's freedom. I quoted the applicable part of it to clarify the narrow point that a "fair fight" as it was characterized quickly becomes brutally unfair.

[DarkReign]

There's nothing bigoted about that quote, and shame on you for suggesting so. The only thing obvious is that you will make conclusions before you do your own research. Madison's speech had to do with balancing voting rights to best preserve everyone's freedom. I quoted the applicable part of it to clarify the narrow point that a "fair fight" as it was characterized quickly becomes brutally unfair.

Whoa whoa whoa....I never meant to say you were bigoted in anyway.

I said, that quote is obviously bigoted, and youre right, I didnt research the context of when it was said.

But youre still using a quote that clearly states that women, black people, and all non-property owners shouldnt vote.

I understand youre saying that, in Madison's time, he used this quoted rationale to justify the absence of universal sufferage to the end that it "balanced" the election process.

That basically, trying to balance a political system will ultimately lead to some sort of imbalance later. I agree, but the quote comes off wrong.

[Obstructed_View]

The quote is not even remotely bigoted. Here's the entire paragraph that it came from:


"The right of suffrage is a fundamental article in republican constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular governments and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts."

Madison never suggested any such thing, and never tried to make any sort of justification that you attribute to him, and you, again, should be ashamed of yourself for jumping to such an uninformed conclusion. I was simply using the quote to illustrate that the danger of having a scale balanced too much IN EITHER DIRECTION is dangerous to all, and that democracy isn't pretty or elegant, but constantly requires debate and thought. Leave it to someone to throw a charge of racism or sexism into the debate to fuck it up.

[sabar]

Fact: Money gets you elected.
Fact: Money is far more effective at the local and state level than the federal.
Fact: Money does not hurt either party, they hurt the honest people that SHOULD be leading us but aren't.

Take this true story from the JFK library and say that money doesn't influence politics, often for the worst:


As a freshman legislator in 1995, North Carolina Representative Cindy Watson was proud to be the first Republican elected from Duplin County in more than a century and the first woman ever elected to the North Carolina House from Duplin County. She was eager to improve the quality of life for eastern North Carolinians through economic growth, market deregulation, corporate tax relief, and agricultural expansion. Then she met with a small group of concerned citizens known as the Alliance for a Responsible Swine Industry. They showed that waste and stench from hog farms were causing asthma in children, making it unbearable to walk outside, and contaminating water wells with E. coli bacteria. Representative Watson met with more citizens and realized the expansion of the hog-farming industry in North Carolina without regulation would have a devastating impact on the environment and the health of her constituents. The amount of waste produced by the animal and poultry population in her district was staggering, and the means by which the industry handled that waste had proved destructive to the environment.

"Even though the industry uses state-of-the-art methods for meat production, it is still using ‘slop bucket’ technology for waste treatment," Watson stated. In 1997, Watson co-sponsored legislation that would force farmers to better handle waste, in part by phasing out hog-waste lagoons that held waste for 9.3 million hogs and by placing a time-limited moratorium on new operations. In the past, big money from large-scale hog-farmers had helped quash attempts at enacting environmental regulations in the General Assembly, but when a hog factory accidentally spilled 25 million gallons of hog waste in North Carolina’s New River, the worst spill in state history, the public rallied behind the need for regulations and Representative Watson’s legislation passed in 1998. Nevertheless, the state’s largest corporate hog farmers joined forces and created Farmers for Fairness to vigorously oppose Representative Watson. From June 1996 to May 1997, Farmers for Fairness spent $1.4 million in its campaign. Estimates suggest that $10,000 to $20,000 a week were spent on an advertising campaign to smear Watson. Farmers then poured money into the campaign of her Republican primary opponent, targeting Watson for defeat in the upcoming election. In the 1998 Republican primary, despite her incumbent status, Watson lost her party’s nomination to Johnny Manning, a hog farmer. After leaving office, Watson campaigned to draft Elizabeth Dole for the Republican nomination for president in 2000 and launched an unsuccessful bid for the North Carolina State Senate.

Watson recieved the 2004 Profile in Courage Award.

[DarkReign]

The quote is not even remotely bigoted. Here's the entire paragraph that it came from:


"The right of suffrage is a fundamental article in republican constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular governments and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts."

Madison never suggested any such thing, and never tried to make any sort of justification that you attribute to him, and you, again, should be ashamed of yourself for jumping to such an uninformed conclusion. I was simply using the quote to illustrate that the danger of having a scale balanced too much IN EITHER DIRECTION is dangerous to all, and that democracy isn't pretty or elegant, but constantly requires debate and thought. Leave it to someone to throw a charge of racism or sexism into the debate to fuck it up.

I stand completely corrected. My bad.

[101A]

Fact: Money gets you elected.
Fact: Money is far more effective at the local and state level than the federal.
Fact: Money does not hurt either party, they hurt the honest people that SHOULD be leading us but aren't.

Take this true story from the JFK library and say that money doesn't influence politics, often for the worst:



Watson recieved the 2004 Profile in Courage Award.

You could see that story as money getting somebody ousted, you could also see that as an inflamed, and very motivated minority effecting an election beyond what there numbers suggest they ought to be able to; which is certainly not unprecedented. Also, if the hog farmers helped her get elected (which ostensibly they did), then she went to Washington and began voting on, and in fact enacting, legislation which was detrimental to those farmers...they were pretty pi$$ed I would imagine.

Kind of like when I voted for Bush Sr. in '88, believing him when he said, "read my lips...."; two years later I was sportin gear which read "I voted for George Bush and all I have left is this lousy T-Shirt" - two years after that I entered a write-in candidate for President, although at the time I agreed more with Sr. than Bill Clinton, I could not bring myself to vote for someone who had betrayed what I believed, and what he promised he believed.

[spurster]

Why do democracies allow political donations?

Freedom of speech. If I want to spend money to promote my political opinion, I should be able to.

Why should democracies disallow political donations?

Corruption. In reality, donations buy/strongly influence congresscritters. The current system ensures that corporations and the wealthy get their way. I would be for public financing of the major elections, where candidates can choose public or private financing with some mechanism so that private financing can't greatly outspend public.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

There seems to be alot of misunderstanding of my position here. I'm not anti-democracy! I'm for fair elections untainted by the stink or corporate and religious money.

I am saying that donations to political parties should not be allowed, and that election campaigns should be funded from the public purse. There is a cost to the taxpayer, but at least we then have a fair election where both sides have the same monetary backing to conduct their campaign.

If outside parties really want to donate, they should do so to a central fund, equally distributed amongst the parties. They are then donating to a fair democratic process.

At the moment the donations for favours reality skews our entire political system. If our politicians weren't co-opted by money, maybe they could make better decisions?