Big parties should scrap electoral funding scam

Issue 

The deal between Labor and the Liberal-Nationals to add another $2 million to their election campaign funds — at the people's expense — before the September election was an extension of a “deeply undemocratic major party scam to further entrench their parliamentary domination”, said Peter Boyle, Socialist Alliance candidate for Sydney.

“This comes on top of the $45 million in electoral funding these three parties received, between them, for the 2010 election,” said Boyle.

"And it follows the doubling of candidate deposits for the House of Representatives and the Senate — a move that makes it harder for smaller and newer parties as well as for independents," said Boyle, a national co-convener of the Socialist Alliance.

“Electoral funding has been used by the big parties mainly to pay for deceptive and manipulative TV advertising campaigns, which systematically misinformed the public.

“The current electoral system should be scrapped and replaced by a new system under which the Australian Electoral Commission is given the duty to distribute and publicise the policies and profiles of all candidates.”

The major parties are already entrenched by the single-member electorates for the House of Representatives, Boyle said, and this was why the Socialist Alliance supported proportional representation for both houses of Parliament.

Comments

Donations to political parties are bribes.

The Money Solution tax can collect all the money needed to operate Parliament.

With no bribery we will gain better candidates.

Under existing law Editors are lining up to go to jail.
All Editors who have published images of Kevin Rudd as a bumbling Nazi
have breached Australia's Electoral Act. You can read the words. The 'relevant period' commenced early in August and ends when the last
vote is cast on September 7th 2013. For more information Google for
Murdoch war Malaysia Sun.

The Murdoch editors are obviously caught. What about law abiding
editors who broke the stories and reported on the stories of others - by
showing the offending images? The image is aimed at the voters who
like Page 3 and Sport; the covering words are immaterial. The escape is
at (5) (1) but even Rudd's most supportive editor may not be able to
explain why their image is not defamatory of Rudd. I suggest they
immediately publish their defense with words on a front page - using a
miniature image in their explanation.

You can also see that this upgraded 1918 law also applies to radio, TV,
internet and telephone
John Robertson

If you like our work, become a supporter

Green Left is a vital social-change project and aims to make all content available online, without paywalls. With no corporate sponsors or advertising, we rely on support and donations from readers like you.

For just $5 per month get the Green Left digital edition in your inbox each week. For $10 per month get the above and the print edition delivered to your door. You can also add a donation to your support by choosing the solidarity option of $20 per month.

Freecall now on 1800 634 206 or follow the support link below to make a secure supporter payment or donation online.