One way in which John McCain earned a reputation as a “maverick” was his support for campaign finance reform - not something usually associated with the Republican Party - particularly when Tom DeLay’s regime in the House was founded on the notorious “K Street Project” - a drive to ensure lobbying firms employed only Republicans and an attempt to hoover up as much corporate money as possible for the GOP.
Morris Iemma is, perhaps, a more unlikely political reformer than McCain, but it appears that he’s been driven to a recognition that a complete ban on political donations is the only way to draw a line under the succession of scandals associated with developers and Labor mates which threatens to engulf his already shaky government. Writing today in The Australian, Mike Steketee rightly points out the radicalism of the plan Iemma is supporting, and its desirability.
There are two big questions, however, which remain unanswered as yet. The first relates to the treatment of “third party campaigns”, which Barry O’Farrell is opposing. No doubt he has in mind the unions (though business has poured significant amounts of money into political advertising over the last decade). But - and probably of more importance - any approach to campaign finance reform would have to deal with the same phenomenon that crippled the McCain-Feingold reforms - the ability of entities legally but not politically distinct from parties to attract donations and run high profile ostensibly independent campaigns.
Secondly, it’s difficult to see how independents who aren’t already elected or new parties could get off the ground in the absence of any donations. There does seem to be a case for treating individual donations and corporate or union donations separately. It would be a very troubling unintended consequence of this reform push if it ended up erecting barriers to entry into the system for candidates and parties wanting to challenge the dominance of the major parties.
Cross-posted at PollieGraph.
So we are saying that an outright ban on donations is just as bad as letting organisational donors manipulate political parties into making “pro-donor” decisions.
I won’t advocate it, because I don’t think it will work, but if direct donations are the problem, why not make sourcing donations in some way indirect. For example banning political donations outright and letting government pay a fixed sum of money to each candidate to be used for the specific purpose of running their campaign, or in the case of a party allowing them to pool those resources collected for each candidate they have running (limited to the maximum available positions per electorate, i.e. one per representative seat and one payment for each senator up to the number of seats available).
It removes the direct influence of donors, and on face value seems fair, but there are too many problems. It probably will mean increased taxes (mitigated slightly by higher profits by taking away a company expense, presumably), it could be prone to abuse by governing parties to decrease funding to oppositions regardless of any safeguards we set up, its sounds like it would be pretty prone to abuse from nuisance campaigners in it for the cash payout, It may end up funding undesirable parties and candidates (mentioning no one in particular) which generally won’t be well received by the public, and of course it adds yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already complex government system.
So now that I have completely destroyed my own argument (flimsy as it was) maybe someone out there has a better idea, I really hope so because along with the lobbyists this is one of the things that undermines confidence in an electoral system, not on an everyday basis, but every time something like what is happening in NSW occurs we get that little bit more cynical. But don’t say I didn’t try.
This post has been up for 13 hours and nobody has challenged Mark’s description of McCain as a political finance reformer? Is that just an awkward silence? LOL
This is from my mediamattersaction.org email this morning:
I guess McCain at the very least represents a warning of the potential dangers involved with financial reform: close one door, another opens. Over the table, under the table, whatever. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, or fatten a goose.
Doen’t mean it’s not worth giving the tree a damn good shake, though…
gandhi, Mark did point out that McCain’s “reforms” failed in effect. Thanks for the extra info on the hypocrisy, though!
I share Steketee’s scepticism, and it would certainly be an uncharacteristic move for NSW Labor to embrace an end to private donations. Personally I am not sure that an outright ban on donations is the answer anyway - more realistic would be a well defined cap in annual donations to political parties, or something along those lines.
I certainly don’t think it spoils democracy for people to chip in a few bob (or even, god forbid, a few hundred bob) for someone or some organisation that they believe in.
The point about third-party organisations is a good one. There’s not much point having a ban on donations to political parties if we then see “independent” organisations like Union Workers For a Fairer Australia (TM) or The Coalition of Religious Conservatives (TM) spring up, solicit lots of donations, and then do practically the same thing that political parties did previously. Where does one draw the line between a legitimate NGO an a glorified front group?
Just a couple of points on gandhi’s quote from that email…
More than any other sitting member of “Congress”? I thought Congress only referred to the American lower house? McCain’s a Senator, after all.
I’d also question the assertion that it’s only “media corporations” that he’s collected more money from, as I’m sure there are organisations in other industries that do plenty of lobbying as well.
*shrugs* Minor points, maybe,
oops, submitted before I’d finished. Meant to say, “Minor points, maybe, but ones I found interesting. Always worth looking at both sides.”
Peter, I think Congress refers to Reps + Senate (like we say “Parliament”) except in “The Kama Sutra of Vatsayana” where it has a happier meaning.
Tricky issue this. We can see why bribery should be inhibited, but there seem to be several practical ways that corporations or other groups might circumvent restrictions, e.g.
* donate to a spurious “lobby” group intead of directly to the party
* get employees to make many small donations as individuals [but could be “sprung” by a whistleblower]
And at the grass-roots level, it’d be poor to inhibit new groups, or independent candidates, or special-interest “single issue” groups, etc.
Tricky…
“except in “The Kama Sutra of Vatsayana” where it has a happier meaning.”
It’s often bothered me that the K-S translates that way to English - what should we make of the Congress Party?
Mark:
I’ve already had my say about what I believe is undue influence on policies and laws over at Andrew Bartlett’s blog on the Housing Affordability topic http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1985#comments [item 13].
You are, of course, entitled to agree or disagree or even condemn what I had to say but I could not find any other logical causes for the residential housing affordability disaster.
FDB
what should we make of the Congress Party?
Not sure….
or should I say, F**ked If I Know !!
Or is that Party just a fancy name for Orgy? Look, don’t waste time with snacks or beer or wine or music, just cut to the chase!
the secret donation booth
Here’s a link to the website text of that MM email I post earlier:
http://mediamattersaction.org/freeride/myths/#4
The article is looking at McCain’s political career, starting with his embroilment in the Keating Five, “one of the biggest financial scandals in American history”. Was he in Congress before he became a Senator? I’m not sure. Does it matter?
My point is that McCain’s alleged “reforms” are really just cynical ploys which get good media coverage because everybody likes the idea, but the details are too complex to dwell on too long. This comprehensive Wikipedia page on campaign finance reform includes some discussion of the McCain-Feingold bill, but as MM says:
I think the key thing is transparency, as evidence lately by revelations about Kevin Rudd’s paid trips to Sudan and China.
Congress is a term used as shorthand for the House of Representatives but is also the proper name for the legislative body comprising both houses. So it can be a bit confusing. But a member of the House will be described as being a Congress person while a Senator is “in Congress”.
ho-ho-witz
Its an interesting concept, it appeals to me that we can solve this using social engineering rather then laws and complex mechanisms. However, would it have a negative effect on the funds available to political parties? The problem seems to be the “blind faith” part, just as a politician wouldn’t pay for a vote he couldn’t verify due to a secret ballot; a organisation wouldn’t pay a political party to influence their policy if they couldn’t see the results of that payment because of “secret donations”.
and equally would it make political parties and candidates more prone to status-quo decisions as while they might know who they will upset they won’t know how it will effect their party finances in the long run?
Any thoughts?
“However, would it have a negative effect on the funds available to political parties?”
*gasp*
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
The humanity!!!!
FDB
Hmmmm, Point taken.
I wonder if the problem of political campaign funding could be partly solved by eliminating some of the costs, notably electronic media. If say there was a ban on all television advertising, the spiralling costs of political campaigns could be checked. If political parties were forced back into old style townhall meetings and letterboxing, party membership might be invigorated. At the same time newer forms of campaigning such as the internet could be advanced. Amateurish campaigns founded on enthusiasm should become the norm rather than the slick = professional cynicism that we now confront. Further public funding would only add to that slippery slope.