2,869
edits
Political transparency: Difference between revisions
Political transparency (view source)
Revision as of 00:15, 28 November 2022
, 00:15, 28 November 2022no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:11.png|alt=91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins.|thumb|'''Figure 1'''. Dark money in our political system]] | [[File:11.png|alt=91% of the time the better-financed candidate wins.|thumb|'''Figure 1'''. Dark money in our political system]] | ||
'''Politicians get into power by campaigning. The better funded a campaign the more likely a candidate is to get into office'''<ref>Represent.US: https://visual.ly/community/Infographics/politics/how-money-won-congress</ref>'''(see Figure 1). A prime source of funding are [[ | '''Politicians get into power by campaigning. The better funded a campaign the more likely a candidate is to get into office'''<ref>Represent.US: https://visual.ly/community/Infographics/politics/how-money-won-congress</ref>'''(see Figure 1). A prime source of funding are [[Corporation|corporations]], however, they exist to make money, therefore, these ''donations'' always come at a price.''' | ||
In Australia, 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, similar to how CCTV reduces crime by inducing the fear of being watched. 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 our attempt below) and is flawed in its inception as third parties often donate via shell companies and only donations under $13,800 need to be declared. This leads to large donors circumventing the intention of the law by splitting large donations into smaller chunks. For example, Zali Steggal received $100,000 from the coal millionaire John Kinghorn who 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>. [[File:MP Donor Jacket.png|alt=Proposed MP uniform.|thumb|Proposed MP uniform, showing donors.]]Ideally for the public to fully understand who is pulling the strings 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. | In Australia, 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, similar to how CCTV reduces crime by inducing the fear of being watched. 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 our attempt below) and is flawed in its inception as third parties often donate via shell companies and only donations under $13,800 need to be declared. This leads to large donors circumventing the intention of the law by splitting large donations into smaller chunks. For example, Zali Steggal received $100,000 from the coal millionaire John Kinghorn who 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>. [[File:MP Donor Jacket.png|alt=Proposed MP uniform.|thumb|Proposed MP uniform, showing donors.]]Ideally for the public to fully understand who is pulling the strings 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. | ||