Recent weeks have seen media attention focus on the role of Chinese nationals in sponsoring or donating to Australian politicians and political parties, amidst public concerns over what these donors might potentially expect in return - from Australia's foreign policy objectives, to favourable deals in domestic economic projects.
While it's easy to target any individual foreign donor as the boogeyman, let's not forget the brokenness of the political system as a whole which sees these electoral donations actively solicited in the first place, and the reliance on donations to facilitate access to those in power.
In principle, is a big business donating to a political party in the hope of influencing a change in corporate tax policy acting any more honourably than a foreign national making a donation to advance some sort of outcome in Australia's foreign policy? Or what about trade unions donating to MPs who support pro-union industrial laws?
READ MORE
Calls for Dastyari to step aside
Let's go back to the basic question of why donors make political donations in the first place. When interviewed in the media, the standard response from donors and politicians alike is usually something bland: they are just happily supporting the democratic process - and they will quickly volunteer they aren't breaking any rules. In other words, nothing to see here, move right along.
The problem is, we are not talking about fundraising for the Red Cross here or for starving children overseas. Most people loath politicians even at the best of times. So it's hard to imagine many political donors actually donate out of genuine affection for those with power.
"Do we just have a more sophisticated system of facilitating payments and favours in the form of electoral donations?"
It's also obvious from the electoral donation records that many corporate donors donate to both sides of politics, in the same way one might hedge a foreign currency transaction. If you truly believe in (or oppose) a cause, for example marriage equality, would you really donate to both the supporting and opposing sides of the cause?
We often think of some of the governments in Asia and Africa as more backward and corrupt, because the locals there might still rely on the odd paper bag of cash to bribe government officials. But are Western democracies far superior? Or do we just have a more sophisticated system of facilitating payments and favours in the form of electoral donations? If the basic definition of corruption is paying somebody with power to get something in return, then do we have a legalised form of corruption and institutionalised bribery?
An obscene example is perhaps the United States, where campaign spending in each Presidential Election exceeds the entire GDP of many poorer nations in the world, and a candidate's ability to fundraise outranks almost all other qualities.
In the end, the inescapable answer to why individuals and corporates make electoral donations is that they hope to get something in return, whether it's influence, recognition, a listening ear, a policy outcome or even just a selfie pic. While it may not be quite as obvious as paying cash in return for getting a development approval (although that has also happened), donors do expect or hope for something. Rational business people do not spend their money for no returns at all.
It's not commonly known, but privately, most politicians and donors actually loath fundraising. Most elected representatives go into public life with a genuine desire to make a difference and to advocate for their communities, not to spend most of their time haggling for donations. For pollies, there's nothing worse than being stuck at fundraising functions night after night seeing the same faces again and forced to flatter those holding the purse strings. However, most see that as a necessary evil, because if they don't fundraise, they won't be competitive against the other side at the next election. Thus the whole system rewards pollies who are good fundraisers and those who can fund not only their own election campaigns but carry their party's finances as well.
At the same time, fundraising functions aren't all that fun for donors either, despite what all the smiling faces might suggest. At these dinner functions, donors are usually fleeced, paying several hundreds of dollars per head for pretty ordinary food, and bidding for overpriced and useless items at auctions (such as bottles of wine signed by Tony Abbott which devalued overnight when Malcolm became PM).
There's also suffering through long speeches from pollies (although the invention of smart phones has helped alleviated that boredom somewhat). Lucky dips are a staple at these functions, and would go on endlessly, with donors winning exciting prizes like shampoo and soy sauce products. If there's an easier way for donors to get what they want from the political process, I'm pretty sure they would choose to spend their nights elsewhere.
"The underlying issue driving this behaviour - the arms race between each party to match each other's war chest at the next election."
So today we have this absurd situation in our political system where everyone knows donors expect something in return for their investment, and where most of the players don't actually enjoy this system either but feel they have no choice but to play by the rules of the game. Often, the reforms and proposed changes in electoral donation laws have been piece-meal and somewhat arbitrary.
Depending on what's caused outrage in the news, there might be a push to ban donations from developers one week, and the next week it's Chinese nationals. Each wave of reform makes the donation rules more complex, but in the end the rules remain full of loopholes and contradictions, and don't address the underlying issue driving this behaviour - the arms race between each party to match each other's war chest at the next election.
So here's a radical idea. Why not ban all electoral donations altogether, except the humble community sausage sizzle?
Apart from the collateral benefits of all of us no longer needing to watch endless election ads on TV, and finding less election junk mail in the letterbox, it may actually force pollies to spend more of their time doing things that are free, like talking to real people at train stations and at town hall meetings.
Pollies would also have more time to work on public policy, having been freed up from attending demeaning fundraisers. It would certainly level the playing field, so ordinary citizens can run for office without needing the patronage of party power brokers and donors.
Donors who have too much money and no where to spend it, can donate their millions to needy community groups instead - to the people who actually need the money and can't give anything back in return. Everyone will be a winner here, perhaps except for the lobbyist industry that depend on extracting donations and facilitating access to pollies.
But don't worry too much about the poor lobbyists. Their skills can be usefully redeployed in the community sector where they can raise funds for the truly needy - where the difference between meeting and not meeting a fundraising target is not just buying fewer advertisements, but could be a matter of life and death in the case of depressed youths, single mums and the homeless who depend on properly funded community services. What a better world that would be.
is a former deputy mayor in the City of Ryde and has been an independent local government councillor since 2008. He is also editor of , publishing stories of people from multicultural Eastwood in Sydney's North West.
