In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded?

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 3:34pm:

In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded?

Probably by the taxpayer. The taxpayers already pay for political campaigns by forking out more than $2 for every vote a candidate receives. Taxpayers also pay directly for the campaigns of political parties until the political party officially "launches" the campaign. That's why we're in the second half of the election campaign with hardly any campaign launches so far.

Some reforms for taxpayer-funded election campaigns:
* Pay candidates about $5 for very vote they receive.
* Introduce a spending cap on campaigns.
* Parties pay for their campaigns from the date the writs are issued.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 3:34pm:

In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded?

That was my initial concern too.

However, now I think "stuff 'em".

Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 3:34pm: In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded? That was my initial concern too. However, now I think "stuff 'em". Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time.

Oh duh!

There's much more money to be made in chook raffles and sausage sizzles lol  :P

Lisa Jones wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 3:34pm: In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded? That was my initial concern too. However, now I think "stuff 'em". Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time. Oh duh! There's much more money to be made in chook raffles and sausage sizzles lol  :P

The Libs could raffle off this old chook.

https://crikey-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2016/04/bronwynbishop070416.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:04pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 3:34pm: In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded? That was my initial concern too. However, now I think "stuff 'em". Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time.

Yeas....but that gives the well heeled Turnbulls and Palmers just a teensy weeny edge, yeas?

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:11pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 3:34pm: In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded? That was my initial concern too. However, now I think "stuff 'em". Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time. Yeas....but that gives the well heeled Turnbulls and Palmers just a teensy weeny edge, yeas?

Nope.

The ALP have thousands of Union Officials and members to help in election campaigns.

They're out there every weekend, knocking on doors and doing letterbox drops (for free).

I think donations should be limited to say $1000 but only from people on the candidates electoral role and receipts posted out to the donor by AEC to limit dodgy donations or perhaps even some auditing by the AEC checking with the donor for similar reasons.

Corporate and union donations should be banned

Corporate and Union Political Advertising should be banned.

All government ads should stop once the campaign has started

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:11pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 3:34pm: In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded? That was my initial concern too. However, now I think "stuff 'em". Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time. Yeas....but that gives the well heeled Turnbulls and Palmers just a teensy weeny edge, yeas? Nope. The ALP have thousands of Union Officials and members to help in election campaigns. They're out there every weekend, knocking on doors and doing letterbox drops (for free).

Okay.....so what is it you are proposing?  Donations are okay, so long as it is only what you are handed on a door knock?

That does not prevent a 'Turnbull' using his personal fortune to out spend you.

I really don't reckon there is a viable option to the present system.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

I think donations should be limited to say $1000 but only from people on the candidates electoral role and receipts posted out to the donor by AEC to limit dodgy donations or perhaps even some auditing by the AEC checking with the donor for similar reasons. Corporate and union donations should be banned Corporate and Union Political Advertising should be banned. All government ads should stop once the campaign has started

Too easily beaten.  Union slips a member a couple of thousand and he does it.  Same with a corporate.

I agree about the Government advertising.

A. You could designate a set amount per candidate per seat, to be funded by a mixture of govt. funds and public donations, to be used so as to promote the candidate or their parties policies ONLY. The spending is to be audited after the election with any money not spent for it's intended purpose, or any not spent, to be refunded to the taxpayer to be used at the next election. Anyone found to have fraudulently used the money is to be removed from parliament immediately and they forfeit any wages or other benefits they've received in the meantime and are prohibited from running for office again.

B. You can create a 'pool', whereby donations can be made from people or organisations who wish to be altruistic, the donations are to be made tax deductible, however the donor cannot dictate who the money goes to. The money is to be used to help fund Part A of my response.

before anyone starts with 'everyone will put their name up as a candidate' just to get the money .. no, they won't. A candidate must meet a per-determined criteria and the money can ONLY be used to promote their polices. Their is nothing to be gained by not being a genuine contender, the temptation to try and use it as a cash cow is limited

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

Okay.....so what is it you are proposing?  Donations are okay, so long as it is only what you are handed on a door knock?

he said they can go door knock for votes, not donations.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:14pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:11pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 3:34pm: In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded? That was my initial concern too. However, now I think "stuff 'em". Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time. Yeas....but that gives the well heeled Turnbulls and Palmers just a teensy weeny edge, yeas? Nope. The ALP have thousands of Union Officials and members to help in election campaigns. They're out there every weekend, knocking on doors and doing letterbox drops (for free). Okay.....so what is it you are proposing?  Donations are okay, so long as it is only what you are handed on a door knock? That does not prevent a 'Turnbull' using his personal fortune to out spend you. I really don't reckon there is a viable option to the present system.

It doesn't mean we cannot fix it. If we fix the current system, have a $500 per election disclosure threshold with disclosure taking place as close to real time as is practicable. And that's $500 TOTAL. Not per party.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:20pm:

A. You could designate a set amount per candidate per seat, to be funded by a mixture of govt. funds and public donations, to be used so as to promote the candidate or their parties policies ONLY. The spending is to be audited after the election with any money not spent for it's intended purpose, or any not spent, to be refunded to the taxpayer to be used at the next election. Anyone found to have fraudulently used the money is to be removed from parliament immediately and they forfeit any wages or other benefits they've received in the meantime and e prohibited from running for office again. B. You can create a 'pool', whereby donations can be made from people or organisations who wish to be altruistic, the donations are to be made tax deductible, however the donor cannot dictate who the money goes to. The money is to be used to help fund Part A of my response. before anyone starts with 'everyone will put their name up as a candidate' just to get the money .. no, they won't. A candidate must meet a per-determined criteria and the money can ONLY be used to promote their polices. Their is nothing to be gained by not being a genuine contender the temptation to try and use it as a cash cow is limited

But.....if I am a filthy rich bastard, I will easily defeat anyone funded in either of those ways, yeas?

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:20pm: A. You could designate a set amount per candidate per seat, to be funded by a mixture of govt. funds and public donations, to be used so as to promote the candidate or their parties policies ONLY. The spending is to be audited after the election with any money not spent for it's intended purpose, or any not spent, to be refunded to the taxpayer to be used at the next election. Anyone found to have fraudulently used the money is to be removed from parliament immediately and they forfeit any wages or other benefits they've received in the meantime and e prohibited from running for office again. B. You can create a 'pool', whereby donations can be made from people or organisations who wish to be altruistic, the donations are to be made tax deductible, however the donor cannot dictate who the money goes to. The money is to be used to help fund Part A of my response. before anyone starts with 'everyone will put their name up as a candidate' just to get the money .. no, they won't. A candidate must meet a per-determined criteria and the money can ONLY be used to promote their polices. Their is nothing to be gained by not being a genuine contender the temptation to try and use it as a cash cow is limited But.....if I am a filthy rich bastard, I will easily defeat anyone funded in either of those ways, yeas?

That's where spending caps come in.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:19pm: Okay.....so what is it you are proposing?  Donations are okay, so long as it is only what you are handed on a door knock? he said they can go door knock for votes, not donations.

Correct, I yam an idiot.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:14pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:11pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 3:34pm: In lots of Threads there are comments about banning them.  If that happens, how will election campaigns by candidates be funded? That was my initial concern too. However, now I think "stuff 'em". Let them go door to door and beg for votes, on their own time. Yeas....but that gives the well heeled Turnbulls and Palmers just a teensy weeny edge, yeas? Nope. The ALP have thousands of Union Officials and members to help in election campaigns. They're out there every weekend, knocking on doors and doing letterbox drops (for free). Okay.....so what is it you are proposing?

No donations.

Let the parties use volunteers to door-knock.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:20pm: A. You could designate a set amount per candidate per seat, to be funded by a mixture of govt. funds and public donations, to be used so as to promote the candidate or their parties policies ONLY. The spending is to be audited after the election with any money not spent for it's intended purpose, or any not spent, to be refunded to the taxpayer to be used at the next election. Anyone found to have fraudulently used the money is to be removed from parliament immediately and they forfeit any wages or other benefits they've received in the meantime and e prohibited from running for office again. B. You can create a 'pool', whereby donations can be made from people or organisations who wish to be altruistic, the donations are to be made tax deductible, however the donor cannot dictate who the money goes to. The money is to be used to help fund Part A of my response. before anyone starts with 'everyone will put their name up as a candidate' just to get the money .. no, they won't. A candidate must meet a per-determined criteria and the money can ONLY be used to promote their polices. Their is nothing to be gained by not being a genuine contender the temptation to try and use it as a cash cow is limited But.....if I am a filthy rich bastard, I will easily defeat anyone funded in either of those ways, yeas?

no. Everyone has a set amount that they can use per seat.

(edited in ) and even if they did, that's no different to what we have now.

Bam wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:23pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:20pm: A. You could designate a set amount per candidate per seat, to be funded by a mixture of govt. funds and public donations, to be used so as to promote the candidate or their parties policies ONLY. The spending is to be audited after the election with any money not spent for it's intended purpose, or any not spent, to be refunded to the taxpayer to be used at the next election. Anyone found to have fraudulently used the money is to be removed from parliament immediately and they forfeit any wages or other benefits they've received in the meantime and e prohibited from running for office again. B. You can create a 'pool', whereby donations can be made from people or organisations who wish to be altruistic, the donations are to be made tax deductible, however the donor cannot dictate who the money goes to. The money is to be used to help fund Part A of my response. before anyone starts with 'everyone will put their name up as a candidate' just to get the money .. no, they won't. A candidate must meet a per-determined criteria and the money can ONLY be used to promote their polices. Their is nothing to be gained by not being a genuine contender the temptation to try and use it as a cash cow is limited But.....if I am a filthy rich bastard, I will easily defeat anyone funded in either of those ways, yeas? That's where spending caps come in.

Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants? 

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:26pm:

Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?

for political purposes, yes.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:26pm: Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?  for political purposes, yes.

Okay.   On this 'cap' thing......what exactly is proposed?  A 'cap' on who doing what?

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:27pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:26pm: Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?  for political purposes, yes. Okay.   On this 'cap' thing......what exactly is proposed?  A 'cap' on who doing what?

spending to promote them, their policies or their parties. I would prefer it didn't allow travel expenses, but I can live with it if it did.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:28pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:27pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:26pm: Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?  for political purposes, yes. Okay.   On this 'cap' thing......what exactly is proposed?  A 'cap' on who doing what? spending to promote them, their policies or their parties. I would prefer it didn't allow travel expenses, but I can live with it if it did.

How does that work?  Let's say you are a Candidate for the seat of 'OzPol.'  You have been told there is a cap of $10,000 on each candidate in the OzPol seat.   Who is the cap on?

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:28pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:27pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:26pm: Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?  for political purposes, yes. Okay.   On this 'cap' thing......what exactly is proposed?  A 'cap' on who doing what? spending to promote them, their policies or their parties. I would prefer it didn't allow travel expenses, but I can live with it if it did. How does that work?  Let's say you are a Candidate for the seat of 'OzPol.'  You have been told there is a cap of $10,000 on each candidate in the OzPol seat.   Who is the cap on?

every candidate receives $10k to promote them or their policies.  To become an eligible you must first be able to prove that X number of people will vote for you.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:28pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:27pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:26pm: Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?  for political purposes, yes. Okay.   On this 'cap' thing......what exactly is proposed?  A 'cap' on who doing what? spending to promote them, their policies or their parties. I would prefer it didn't allow travel expenses, but I can live with it if it did.

What about eliminating the travel rorts with election campaigns?

Until the campaign launch, the taxpayer is paying for the travel. Then the parties pay. Launching the campaign a week or two before polling day shifts a lot of cost onto the taxpayers.

This rort also needs fixing. Proposal: Once the writs are issued, the parties pay for the campaign. The date of the campaign launch becomes irrelevant to the cost of travel that is passed onto the taxpayers.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:35pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:28pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:27pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:26pm: Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?  for political purposes, yes. Okay.   On this 'cap' thing......what exactly is proposed?  A 'cap' on who doing what? spending to promote them, their policies or their parties. I would prefer it didn't allow travel expenses, but I can live with it if it did. How does that work?  Let's say you are a Candidate for the seat of 'OzPol.'  You have been told there is a cap of $10,000 on each candidate in the OzPol seat.   Who is the cap on? every candidate receives $10k to promote them or their policies.  To become an eligible you must first be able to prove that X number of people will vote for you.

The current system requires the payment of a deposit (about $500). Candidate then gets money for every vote. I think they also get the deposit back if they get a certain percentage of the vote.

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:35pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:31pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:28pm: John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:27pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:26pm: Government would attempt to stop a filthy rich bastard spending his money how he wants?  for political purposes, yes. Okay.   On this 'cap' thing......what exactly is proposed?  A 'cap' on who doing what? spending to promote them, their policies or their parties. I would prefer it didn't allow travel expenses, but I can live with it if it did. How does that work?  Let's say you are a Candidate for the seat of 'OzPol.'  You have been told there is a cap of $10,000 on each candidate in the OzPol seat.   Who is the cap on? every candidate receives $10k to promote them or their policies.  To become an eligible you must first be able to prove that X number of people will vote for you.

Great.  You are a candidate and you provide that proof.  You get the $10K.  What stops me (a Fairy God Father White Knight you have no control over or even know) from spending $10B promoting you in the election?

Bam wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:38pm:

What about eliminating the travel rorts with election campaigns?

Like I said, I'd prefer we don't allow travel at all ... but I'm guessing some people might object to that. Any travel they can fund for themselves and then claim it back as a tax deduction, just like every other person in this country.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:40pm:

What stops me (a Fairy God Father White Knight you have no control over or even know) from spending $10B promoting you in the election?

the law

John Smith wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:40pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:40pm: What stops me (a Fairy God Father White Knight you have no control over or even know) from spending $10B promoting you in the election? the law

What Law?  Great idea....but it faces complete impracticability and unworkability.

Way too many loopholes anyone with a problem solving brain could drive a bus through.  How about some filthy rich Saudi wading in and paying a zillion for promotion of you?  How can that be stopped?

I've already been over this many times.

No donations.

Legislate that during the campaign period all parties are allocated equal free time and advertising in all media.

This then gives every party a better chance to get their message across.

It costs no one anything, so donation are not required.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:44pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:40pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:40pm: What stops me (a Fairy God Father White Knight you have no control over or even know) from spending $10B promoting you in the election? the law What Law?  Great idea....but it faces complete impracticability and unworkability. Way too many loopholes anyone with a problem solving brain could drive a bus through.  How about some filthy rich Saudi wading in and paying a zillion for promotion of you?  How can that be stopped?

If we're talking specifically about foreign donations, the solution is simple - ban them. They already are in many countries.

The problem you allude to is different to that, though, and that is perhaps a harder nut to crack. That is the political equivalent of an unshelled macadamia nut.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:44pm:

What Law?

create one doofus'


Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:44pm:

Great idea....but it faces complete impracticability and unworkability.

Bulllsh1t .... sure it needs fine tuning, After all, I wasn't prepared for a policy announcement, I thought we just just discussing ideas


Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:44pm:

Way too many loopholes anyone with a problem solving brain could drive a bus through.

no more loop holes than our current system


Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:44pm:

How about some filthy rich Saudi wading in and paying a zillion for promotion of you?  How can that be stopped?

now you're getting desperate. The same thing that stops him donating zillions now

Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 4:46pm:

I've already been over this many times. No donations. Legislate that during the campaign period all parties are allocated equal free time and advertising in all media. This then gives every party a better chance to get their message across. It costs no one anything, so donation are not required.

I reckon that could work!!!!

The schmedia are told that they will only be paid if the AEC pays them.  They are also told that they may not accept payment from anyone else other than from the AEC.

That is close to a workable solution, but I can still see ways that a squillion can be spent in a seat promoting a candidate within that seat outside the schmedia.

Aussie wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 5:09pm:

Grendel wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:46pm: I've already been over this many times. No donations. Legislate that during the campaign period all parties are allocated equal free time and advertising in all media. This then gives every party a better chance to get their message across. It costs no one anything, so donation are not required. I reckon that could work!!!! The schmedia are told that they will only be paid if the AEC pays them.  They are also told that they may not accept payment from anyone else other than from the AEC. That is close to a workable solution, but I can still see ways that a squillion can be spent in a seat promoting a candidate within that seat outside the schmedia.

The Court of Disputed Returns has powers to overturn an election result for many reasons. This could be added to the list.

Bam wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 5:09pm: Grendel wrote on Jun 7th, 2016 at 4:46pm: I've already been over this many times. No donations. Legislate that during the campaign period all parties are allocated equal free time and advertising in all media. This then gives every party a better chance to get their message across. It costs no one anything, so donation are not required. I reckon that could work!!!! The schmedia are told that they will only be paid if the AEC pays them.  They are also told that they may not accept payment from anyone else other than from the AEC. That is close to a workable solution, but I can still see ways that a squillion can be spent in a seat promoting a candidate within that seat outside the schmedia. The Court of Disputed Returns has powers to overturn an election result for many reasons. This could be added to the list.

Yeas.....so if I had a cunning plan about a certain Liberal seat, as someone who did not want the Lib to win.......I have an easy method of not only sabotage, but after that, increasing the chance my man might win because the Lib has been 'disgraced' (in the Court of Disputed Returns) by my naughtiness which may well not be detected as mine.