Subscribe: Comments on Peter Martin: Tuesday Column: Ban large political donations. S...
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/feeds/1446573546286414635/comments/default
Preview: Comments on Peter Martin: Tuesday Column: Ban large political donations. S...

Comments on Peter Martin: Tuesday Column: Ban large political donations. Starting here, starting now.





Updated: 2015-09-30T08:04:03.541+10:00

 



I realy feel for the gamblers in the US. I cant be...

2008-01-12T00:34:00.000+11:00

I realy feel for the gamblers in the US. I cant beleive your Congress banned all banks and credit card companies from accepting transactions from online gambling sites which makes you unable to play online poker. What a bunch of hypocrites your state government are. They have the largest gambling operations with lotto, keno, etc. If they truly believed their rhetoric about internet gambling they would cut out the state operations also. And now they are bringing in a law to legalise slot machines. Personally I would have a big grudge against any party that stopped me from playing on a online poker site. I think there must be some way for you guys to get around this problem. Must make you wonder if you are living in the land of the free when it seems the government has full control on what it will and wont let you do.



LETTER TO THE EDITOR, September 12, 2007Limiting i...

2007-10-12T09:23:00.000+10:00

LETTER TO THE EDITOR, September 12, 2007

Limiting influence

Peter Martin's article on political donations (Opinion, 9/10) was characteristically engaging and provocative. But his preferred solution (a
cap on donations) is not the only way of limiting donor influence.

In our book "Imagining Australia", Macgregor Duncan, David Madden, Peter Tynan and I proposed a system of blind trusts, which presently operate in Chile and South Korea. This would work as follows. Imagine an individual who wants to donate $5000 to a politician's campaign. Instead of sending the politician a cheque, the person must instead go to a bank and deposit the $5000 in a blind trust. The individual donor receives a receipt for $5000, but it does not identify to whom the money was given. The recipient politician, on the other hand, will receive a monthly statement as to the overall balance of the campaign account, but will never know the details of any particular deposit. Politicians will therefore have incentives to mfundraise extensively, but they will not be able to identify who has in fact given them money.

A donation system that institutionalises blind trusts encourages companies, unions or citizens to give money, but without the risk that donors can unduly influence policies. It provides donors with a guarantee of confidentiality, which may appeal to many. And unlike proposals for a stricter US-style system, it will not tie up the courts in campaign finance litigation.

Andrew Leigh



Interesting idea, Peter. I had no idea the Labor ...

2007-10-10T08:53:00.000+10:00

Interesting idea, Peter. I had no idea the Labor Club was such a large donator of funds to the Labor Party.

Of course, this is a problem faced by governments around Australia (except WA which bans pokies outside the casino). The ACT is not alone, and the odds of the system changing are the same in Canberra as elsewhere - not great.

Given that clubs are required to be non-profit, I wonder what they'd do with the money if they were prevented from political donations? They might want to reduce the number of pokies... or create a bicycle museum like the Tradies.