2,865
edits
Political transparency: Difference between revisions
Political transparency (view source)
Revision as of 23:26, 15 February 2022
, 23:26, 15 February 2022no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''Politicians get into power by campaigning. The better funded a campaign the more likely a candidate is to get into office. Taking donations from interested parties always has a price.''' | '''Politicians get into power by campaigning. The better funded a campaign the more likely a candidate is to get into office. Taking donations from interested parties always has a price.''' | ||
Taking Australia as an example, public funding for campaigning has been widely debated<ref>https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/em/political_funding/Report/Chapter6</ref>. There is a common understanding that [[transparency]] is good, as such the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) publishes some open data about political donations<ref>Annual disclosure return:<nowiki>https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/financial_disclosure/guides/donors/index.htm</nowiki></ref> This data is widely available but is difficult for the public to digest (see below) and is flawed in it inception as not all donations are disclosed. Only those under $13,800, which leads to large donors trying to circumvent these rules by splitting large donations into smaller chunks. For example Zali Steggal received $100,000 from the coal millionaire John Kinghorn which when questioned said that it was one cheque which was a split donation from 8 of his family members<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-14/zali-steggall-defends-john-kinghorn-family-donations/100827784 ABC News: Zali Steggall defends donations from wealthy family with links to coal industry]. Accessed on 16th February. Posted Mon 14 Feb 2022 at 11:56am, last updated Mon 14 Feb 2022 at 12:54pm.</ref>. | Taking Australia as an example, public funding for campaigning has been widely debated<ref>https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/em/political_funding/Report/Chapter6</ref>. There is a common understanding that [[transparency]] is good, as such the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) publishes some open data about political donations<ref>Annual disclosure return:<nowiki>https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/financial_disclosure/guides/donors/index.htm</nowiki></ref> and Google openly publishes its ad revenue from politicians<ref>https://transparencyreport.google.com/political-ads/region/AU</ref>. This data is widely available but is difficult for the public to digest (see below) and is flawed in it inception as not all donations are disclosed. Only those under $13,800, which leads to large donors trying to circumvent these rules by splitting large donations into smaller chunks. For example Zali Steggal received $100,000 from the coal millionaire John Kinghorn which when questioned said that it was one cheque which was a split donation from 8 of his family members<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-14/zali-steggall-defends-john-kinghorn-family-donations/100827784 ABC News: Zali Steggall defends donations from wealthy family with links to coal industry]. Accessed on 16th February. Posted Mon 14 Feb 2022 at 11:56am, last updated Mon 14 Feb 2022 at 12:54pm.</ref>. | ||
Ideally for the public fully understand who is telling us what to do it should be mandated that all politicians wear badges much like sportsmen wear the brand of the company that is sponsoring them (see image to the right). Alternatively, we could adopt a very simple, proven change which would reduce the influence corporations have on our democracy, ban direct corporate sponsorship and implement a voucher system so that everyday voters can contribute to parties whilst getting rid of corporate influence. | Ideally for the public fully understand who is telling us what to do it should be mandated that all politicians wear badges much like sportsmen wear the brand of the company that is sponsoring them (see image to the right). Alternatively, we could adopt a very simple, proven change which would reduce the influence corporations have on our democracy, ban direct corporate sponsorship and implement a voucher system so that everyday voters can contribute to parties whilst getting rid of corporate influence. | ||