Bans on political donations threaten our democracy

Imagine for a moment that you’re the managing director of a mining company. You have a project that has met all the legal hurdles raised by the Government, however, now imagine your project is in jeopardy, an environmental activist group have been using litigation to delay your project in the courts, Leonardo DiCaprio has flown down in his private jet to condemn your destruction of the planet, and they are using crowdfunding to pay for advertising targeting your project. These same activists are actively supporting the election of anti-development candidate to political office. What do you do? Do you support an alternative candidate that shares your belief in the economic benefits of your project and is actively campaigning for it? I would. However, this is exactly the kind of expression of free speech Labor and the Greens have opportunistically proposed banning in the wake of the Sam Dastyari affair –along with some Coalition members too.

On discovering Dastyari was not their messiah but in fact a very naughty boy, the Labor party very effectively changed the national conversation from one senator’s questionable conduct, to political donations more generally. This conversation has very quickly devolved into an argument that we should defend democracy and political participation by banning non-individuals and foreigners from donating to political parties. While this seems all very high minded, it ultimately comes down to one group wanting to ban another group from financially supporting things they don’t like. Senator David Leyonhjelm amusingly issued a satirical joint statement on political donations:

Leaders of all political parties have today called for the banning of political donations of the kind they don’t get but other parties do.

‘The particular kinds of donations we don’t receive are morally repugnant.’ they all said simultaneously at a press conference on the High Moral Ground Lawns in Parliament House.

‘Today we announce our intention to put forward a Bill to ban those particular donations we don’t get, because that’s our way of showing we are both useful and morally superior.” they call said.

“If only the other parties were as ethical as we are.” they all concluded in unison.

This statement pretty much sums up the actual position being advocated by both Labor and the Greens. The Greens in particular claim democratic participation as one of their core values. Their actions and policy positions, however, show they support democratic participation that achieves their outcomes, and reject democratic participation that’s counter to their goals. They support the right of environmental and social welfare groups to donate to political parties, but not corporations. If a ban on political donations from environmental groups were proposed, the Greens would be rightfully outraged. Ultimately, much like donations from environmental groups, donations for corporations and trade unions are just individuals collectively advocating for their interests. What could be more democratic?

It’s not hard to see why the Greens in particular are supportive of banning donations from non-individuals. The kinds of campaigns they run tend to be grassroots campaigns that crowdsource donations. They find an ‘orange-bellied parrot’ that’s endangered by some project they don’t like, start a community action group, get the NIMBYs on board and their campaign is in full swing. The people who directly benefit from project are mostly the shareholders of the company backing the project. One way of those shareholders advocating for their position is by donating to a political party that supports their project. Equally trade unions just as legitimately support a political party that has favourable positions on industrial relations. There is nothing illegitimate about this. Nor would there be anything illegitimate about tobacco companies supporting a libertarian party that defends people’s right to smoke.

This basic freedom of non-individuals to advocate for causes via political donation was threatened in February 2012, when the New South Wales government amended the Electoral Funding Act, banning political donations from groups unless the donor is an individual enrolled to vote. This was later struck down by the High Court finding that ‘the laws are invalid because they burden the implied freedom of communication on governmental and political matters, contrary to the commonwealth constitution.’

However, in a more recent ruling the High Court has indicated that this implied freedom of communication on governmental and political matters is not absolute. This is concerning because the High Court cannot be relied upon to defend freedom of speech.

Ultimately, it’s up to us the citizens to defend free speech and prevent future governments from deciding who we can support. Bans on political donations cannot go unchallenged.

Any attempt to regulate who or what can donate to political parties will prove to be self-serving and a threat to democracy.

Justin Campbell
Follow me

144 Comments on "Bans on political donations threaten our democracy"

  1. hahahaha ah, I figured at least one group out there would have to write about how great political bribery is.

    • You didn’t read or understand the article? Or democracy? Supporters can’t support?

    • I read it, your first example was interesting too, one where for some reason hippies could back a candidate financially whereas a mining company couldn’t… Obviously a ban would actually cut both ways.

      My point is more that the title is hysterical, having donations doesn’t destroy democracy, the lack of them wont destroy it either.

      But lets call a spade a spade, whether it be hippies or companies what we call political donation is bribery plain and simple, In practice the bribe is usually given in exchange for the representative to legislate against the voters natural best interest.

      The brown paper bag is as much a pillar of democracy as the no bid government contract, They often go hand in hand after all.

      Lets not insult ourselves by pretending otherwise.

    • Thank you for reading it first, that is appreciated. But you say “bribe” perhaps because that’s the lens you’re seeing the world through? There are laws against bribes. Most donors simply just want to support the candidate that they think fits their needs. If cash donations are banned where does it stop? Ban donations of time, ban handing out how to vote cards?

      Why should one way of offering your preferred candidate support be banned over another? Freedom to choose is diminished just a little bit further.

    • By the way, your point regarding non bid contracts and other subtle forms of corruption and waste is well made and we are dead against that.

    • The lens I see the world through is a cynical one, And that’s the case for you too if the article is any indication.

      Its a good lens to look at politics with. We both know it.

      Now, without making this too complicated the debate doesnt have to be between donations, full ban or no ban obviously there can be some wriggle room and I do think we both agree that the current push for banning just “foreign” donations will create middlemen at best and foster xenophobic undertones in our political system at worst, The outcome would probably be both.

      Political donations… hehe.. to use the agreed term does have well recorded and known deleterious effects on democracy, I mentioned “no bid contracts” and “donations” going hand in hand for example. Thats not just a fancy of mine.

      And the instances of people outside the representatives area “donating” in exchange for the rep acting outside their cities natural best interest is also of real concern.

      Now as I said, neither the existence or lack there of of donations will not be the death of democracy nor will it lead to a mad slippery slope in the same way that jailing thieves doesn’t automatically lead to us executing them.

      I guess its worth asking you if you feel that any change is needed at all, be it regulation or even a ban or change in declaration rules. Hell what about the sponser jump suit rule?

    • Bryon, I really think transparency is the big difference between a bribe and a donation. Getting a donation of $20,000 won’t help you if the electorate thinks you’re a crook.

    • Justin yes, thats that “wriggle room” I mentioned.

    • Byron James You and I were writing out comments at the same time.

    • hahaha yeah, hell quick question, pretty new page homeboy, who are you rascals anyway. Dont usually see much in the way of libertarianism that isnt from the states.

    • To borrow a phrase from spiked I’m a free speech absolutist. Any attempt to regulate speech will always benefit those with power against those without it.

    • LibertyWorks is a liberty do tank. We’re just getting started, but the idea is to campaign for liberty issues. Building coalitions of supporters on particular issues across the political spectrum.

    • So why exactly do you want to donate all that money? Because you’re rooly rooly good guys and you don’t want or expect anything in return at all? Just like all those other rich non tax paying corporations huh? Ain’t neo liberal democracy great… for some. Pull the other one.

    • LibertyWorks me thinks you are a Liberal stooge

    • Justin Campbell re your comment about a donation not helping if the electorate thinks your a crook. It does in Ipswich mate!!!!!!!!!

    • LibertyWorks, you are advocating a system based on ones capacity to buy it. That is not democracy, at all.

  2. Left out the word ‘which’ threaten etc.

  3. OMG, I have seen the light!
    Never again will I question or doubt the magnanimous sacrifices our political and business leaders make in the name of good and justice for all. Nor shall I ever question their profit given right to cut, drill, mine, pollute or otherwise destroy those theoretical finite resources that humanity and nature depend upon for life, for profit is much more important, and their own self-regulated scientific studies have proven without a doubt that those tree hugging greenie environmental protectors got it wrong because any opposing State sanctioned Scientific data is simply pure propaganda!
    P.S. Private message me your bank account details and I promise to make personal donations to any corporation, party or charity of your choice.

    • You should therefore be free to donate to the party that represents your views without restriction.

    • Allan, please place your donation in an ordinary brown paper bag using non sequentially numbered bills. You will be advised of the time and place, probably a carpark late at night, where your donation can be made. Come alone.

    • No No Allan they do not do the bribes that way anymore . What you do is organize that the politican you want to get something off is given a bullshit job after he quits government with an over the top salary that has the bribe concealed within it. Just as Vaille and others and watch Baird take a job with the fucking developers or Santos when he quits government.

  4. What a waste of a story. State and Federal Governments have been bought and paid for by Unions and Big Business. Once upon a time they tried to hide the fact now the governments are that corrupt they no longer care.All donations should be banned.

    • you do realise that the Labor Party was set up by the trade unions.

    • Yes the Labor party was set up by the unions back in the day when Labor and the unions cared about the people . now it is all about power by any means.

    • So we need knew parties that don’t take our vote for granted to emerge. Pleasingly that seems to be happening. But they need donations to survive and spread their message. Libs and Labs shared over $40 million in public money after this past election. Cutting off donors would be another nail for the smaller parties who don’t get that funding.

    • All funding and donations need to be made public without charging for the information.100% transparency

    • Wayne Holberton And in as near to real time as possible but certainly within the week.

  5. There are laws against bribery. But most donors simply wish to support the party that best reflects their own views. What’s wrong with that? And is it only cash that is banned? What about banning donations of time, helping out… damn, ban handing out how to vote cards. What’s the difference and where does the banning stop?

    And every ban you put in place, a little bit more of our freedom slips away… our freedom to support whoever we want in the manner we may want.

    • Donors support party’s because they want something in return.Governments need to be accountable which is why donations need to be banned.Let governments campaign for funds and all money raised put on a public registry.We should also have voluntary voting and no public asset should be sold without a referendum. Also if you are worried about freedom, you should be very concerned with governments banning groups of people and deporting people without a criminal record, who’s only so called crime is they joined a club.

    • Rubbish…. Every bit of corporate / Union influence you take away you GIVE freedom back to the voters….the freedom to elect…one man one vote. Democracy.
      Donations are perverting democracy…not enhancing it.

    • Our ‘Freedoms Slip away’ when our politicians are Bribed. How is Bribery related to freedom? Bribery is a crime against freedom.

    • I don’t see any problem Donating your time, (are you? or are you here for financial benefit?) There is a difference! I’m happy to donate my time to debate. However, when financial donations come with expectations, they are no longer Donations, they are considered Bribes. Do you not see the difference?

  6. They are not donations they are bribes

  7. Groups like Liberty Works are the danger to our democracy. They want the right to buy our government!

    • Presumably then you believe every government in the past has been bought? All we want is to leave open the ability of motivated voters to engage in the political process with freedom which included providing financial support to those the feel represent them best. There are laws against bribes which is an entirely different thing.

    • Just remember the Golden Rule.”He who has the gold makes the rules”

    • That’s not the Golden Rule the Golden Rule is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” which happens to be one of the foundations of Libertarianism

      Of course all donations will be open and visable and how else will politicians raise moeny if not through donations? Will they just add that money to the national debt? Will they have to put up their own money creating an upperclass where only the rich can be politicians?

  8. couldnt agree more..the “scenario” described here is ridiculous!! Daystari wasn’t a “naught boy”….he was BRIBED to corruptly support a project!!! Accepting BRIBES from overseas investors for projects within this country is begging for corruption!!

    • Yes, we agree there is a difference between constituent organisations and individuals participating in the political process and overseas entities. But we would argue that the current system caught Daystari. Some of the proposed changes have the unintended consequence of stopping engaged, genuine supporters from donating to parties that serve them best. That’s an unnecessary and unfortunate restriction on every citizen’s rights.

    • have you ever dealt with Chinese on business Owen?

    • Not directly… my friend does on a permanent basis.. however he hasnt stooped to bribery or corrupt payments yet. We we are discussing elected MOPs… over issues affecting all of Australia…

    • Sam Daystari was caught…only for political gain for the libs. Funny how we find things when we need to.
      My personal view is democracies need to lose party politics….independents, and far fewer of them, an executive. We need employment contracts with enforceable KPIs just like everyone else.

    • Funny..I thought Daystari was caught because he lied and accepted bribes.. kinda like Unsworths “bottle of red”..

  9. what democracy ? Menzies made a ‘captain’s choice to get into the War in Vietnam & Howard did the same .. for Iraq & Afghanistan .. neither decisions involved a parliamentary debate or the citizens of Australia & both cost our country a lot in lives & billions of $$

  10. We have a “ballotocracy”, whereby the governed impact effectively the governed only at election time. THerefore, the election process must be free from input, as much as possible, by a ban on any interference from non-electors all [elector political funding from tax-paid income only].. And a significant pre-poll media ‘black out’ would assist the elector make his/her assessment better.

  11. On teh other hnad, political donations threaten our democracy too. Money in general. Think of the many millions hte union throws at the Labor Party every election, you don’t reckon that is skewing the polls? What about the ceaseless badgering of GetUp and its army of trolls? Democracy is more fragile than we realise….

  12. Is it democratic that those who have wealth have greater access to our politicians simply because they can afford donations? Democracy is when those politicians come to their electorate, not just at election time, going door to door, if need be, talking to people they are supposed to represent, about their views, instead of sitting in their ivory towers waiting for the donors to meet with them in private. Nobody is talking about a total ban of donations, rather making it harder, nothing is impossible, for certain people/factions, to usurp the political process for their own ends at the expense of the majority.

    • The unions / corporations have shown us exactly why the should be no possible input from them. Personal opinion….ban all donations (and maybe parties whilst you’re at it!)…state funded austere elections, independents, no circus giving media the power, ONE MAN ONE VOTE…. that is the extent of our input in fair equitable level playing field elections.

    • Greg Brier Returning to political fundamentals, as you’ve described, may actually restore faith in the political process. It may also encourage more worthy individuals to apply for the positions. I would add, however, there should also be a simultaneous tightening of taxpayer funded perks which are so easily abused.

  13. Not nice to put Julie Bishop in this pic dressed all in white!

  14. What a load of crap. A corporation doesn’t give a stack of dosh to a political party just on the off chance that they will get what they want. It is always “something for something” in business. It is also cheap. Buying a promise from a politician or party to approve a project costs nothing compared to running a campaign to convince the public to accept the project. Slinging 200k to the Liberal party via some shonky “foundation” will get you anything you want. For the corporation that amount is what?… week’s salary for the CEO? It is a dirt cheap deal to get approval for a billion dollar project. Contrast that with a public campaign. 200k doesn’t buy much TV advertising these days. You’d be lucky to produce a quality ad for that; let alone actually airing it in prime time. Our democracy has been sold for peanuts.

  15. No free lunch, and it really is a subtle bribe.

  16. The best democracy money can buy, and it has already.
    I suppose the example of a miner wanting to exploit stolen resources justifies such a purchase.

  17. No such thing as a free lunch

  18. You are seriously advocating that banning or restricting political donations is undemocratic. So in your world the ones with the most money should have the ability to sway government policy. Imagine for a moment that you’re the managing director of a mining company and you see a democratically elected government announce a mining super profit tax. Should you be able to use your almost unlimited money to undermine that policy and threaten any new government in daring to tax the industry. That’s your version of democracy where money buys influence

  19. What is the difference between a Libertarian and a selfish person?Not all libertarians are selfish, but all selfish people are Libertarian.

    • Libertarians want to leave you alone, let you do what you want, when you want with whomever you want. We don’t want to tax you, steal from you or tell you how to lead your life. What part of that is selfish?

    • LibertyWorks You do not want to help others, and will often deny the State resources to help people in need.Why should I be paying taxes to help others?I read this again and again in this kind of forums.And as for Libertarians and Free Speech!It is just a disguise for prejudice.Why can’t I call people boongs or Niggers?It just some one suppressing my speech,right?

    • Libertarians want to remove & or decimate the public welfare system, the public hospital system, public transport systems & leave corporations to unfettered reign. I cannot think of anything more socially regressive.
      Ludicrous at best.

  20. Corruption is normal business in Asia. We don’t need it here. Especially foreign donations to curry favour.

  21. Ban all cash donations to EVERY party, no money from tax payers either and let them run their election campaigns on facebook and in public areas through meetings i.e. parks and carparks on a sunday. That will truly put everyone on a level playing field and force these arrogant politicians to go out and actually engage with the people they want to vote for them. The electoral commission should publish generic how to vote cards as public education service. Elections would then be decided on the politicians performance for their whole term not on the mass advertising blitz just before the elections.

    • We do definitely share your view on one thing, taxpayers money should not be spent reinforcing the current political duopoly. Both Liberals and Labor received over $20 million each after this last election, outrageous.

  22. Gee I would rather see honesty and integrity. Yeah I must be dreaming!!

  23. Is Liberty Works being funded by the Chinese government?

  24. What a wank …

  25. Could libertarians be any more out of touch?

    • We believe in freedom in all its hues, equality under law, and your right to choose what’s best for you. We also believe that no-one should force others to do what they don’t want to do. Quite modern really, in your extensive experience what part is out of touch?

    • The majority of it. Most people have the common sense to realise that compete freedom in all aspects ultimately leads to less freedom and prosperity overall.
      I would have thought the fact that every comment on here is disagreeing with you might have been a hint to the views of the average person

    • What equality under the law are you talking about? This article, through either stupidity or slight of hand, compares corporations to individuals rather than simply comparing the rights of one individual (the mining CEO) and another individual (the environmentalist). No ban on corporate donations would alter the equality of the rights of these two individuals to donate as much as they want.
      Back to school LibertyWorks.

  26. Does the word “bullshit” have any meaning for them?

  27. I hadn’t seen the issue from this perspective and of course LibertyWorks are correct. This is likely to become a non-issue however since Mr Turnbull has proposed that any such enquiry will encompass trade union donations to the Labor Party – whoops…unintended consequences, Mr Shorten?

  28. Absolute tripe!
    You ask what could be more democratic than unions AND corporations being able to donate…the answer is quite simple, and just happens to be THE fundamental of democracy….
    That is the extent of any one persons influence on who will be the next govt. It isn’t supposed to be decided by the deepest pockets and crooked politicians. Corporations/unions DO NOT HAVE A VOTE let alone be able to influence vote. All the members of such have their one vote just like everyone else

  29. Nope. A long winded response about ‘engaging the public in the political process’ does not magically justify bribery and hijacking of government. Everyone is already aware our government caters to corporate interests above those of the people, this is painfully obvious in their policy decisions. If you remove compulsory voting and publically fund the most popular campaigns equally, you get more honest and accountable politicians and a voting base which is more passionate and educated about real issues rather than just casting moronic votes after being hammered with fear campaigns. You’re not fooling anyone with “donations from the wealthiest are fine and part of democracy 🙂 “…..The US election is being thrown because everyone is aware of the donations and their effects on government, go ahead and tell me how it’s fine again (y)

  30. Its Time the Australian Government is no longer silent, we are now more aware about what you and yours are doing to our country destroying our environment, our water, our reefs, our natural resources. Go peddle you crap to some one else!

  31. We can assume this’sponsored post’ is financed by corporate money? They have no shame… but must be getting nervous about the current political debate that will see their corrupt influence wane. You know… just like in a real democracy. Imagine… a country not ruled by corporate proxy. I can hardly wait.

  32. Threaten our democracy ? it’s already fucked, take a look around you, politicians on the take, from anybody that will offer enough to get them off their fat arses, NBN ruined by a fkn idiot traitor PM, miners, bankers, multi nats, the liars club is floating in cash, and it’s all bribery money,

  33. What an absolute load of foot trough water. You assholes are advocating a democracy based on who has the greatest capacity to ‘buy’ rights. Shove that up your assholes, you regressive snot collectors..

  34. so do political donations also known as bribes

  35. choice if you got money….. less money less choice/input. what a crappy system

  36. The People are Sick of the Corporate Take Over of our Political System. Stick your Donations up your …

  37. Too much cronyism.
    Think Hillary Clinton and that money, it’s nation destroying stuff.

  38. I’m ok with maximum amount of $100 donations from individuals and not businesses or overseas ppl or governments or individuals etc. Also they should only be alloeed by those who are Australia citizens, not residents and attach to thos donations as to what industry they work in for public critisism and scrutiny. This means no Chinese interference can occure, no banks, no mining companies, no special interests at all and no self funding either wich means poor or rich ppl all have a chance and it means no catering to property developers, banks, miners, etc etc etc.
    See ttou can still havw donations that way. Or does that upset your real bosses? Lol

  39. I didn’t get the chance in the article to discuss the role of transparency . Based on the healthy skepticism many of you have shown, any party that’s decision making has been affected by donations would be severely punished at the ballot box. What we need is far better transparency. Dastyari has been forced to resign because of transparency. Though this was a year too late.

    Many of you are advocating for public funding of elections, but as has already been said we already have some public funding of elections and it results in taxpayers money going to the major parties. It was also responsible for funding Pauline Hanson’s resurrection. Every election people screamed how outrageous it was that she made a quick few hundred grand by running for public office.

    Anyway, thank you for all your contributions to this discussion. It’s always interesting to hear alternative points of view. For those of you that love Liberty please like the LibertyWorks page.

  40. That’s a laughable claim!

  41. I do like liberty that”s why I think you arguments are bollocks. You expect people to take seriously a claim that allowing multi national fixed agenda organisations to fund political parties is some how laudable providing it is transparent. You are no more and no less than any other lobby group with deep pockets. Are you advocating a US style Super Pac type situation where multi millions of dollars are poured into campaigns or a National Rifle Association situation where both side of politics are to scared of the backlash to oppose their will?

  42. The donations are the threat to democracy ,its called corruption and its given for favor s .

  43. If your a Pensioner, there is not enough to bribe any of them & threaten their Golden Parachutes.

  44. This is total bullshit what you are suggesting is that cashed up Corporations or any wealthy individual should be able to by political clout. It does not matter what the reasons are bribery and tvere is no other word for it is and should always be illegal. Why should anyone with money’s have a politicians ear any more than any other individual voter.

  45. Governments should be independent of donations or should one say bribes ,because that what people voted for

  46. The fewer things politicians control, the less it matters who controls the politicians.

    • The more things the Politicians sell off to line the pockets of their mates, the more we are screwed, Big Buisness is all about profit for the rich at the expense of the poor, take that Sh*t to a 3rd world country, don’t make Australia 3rd world!

    • The Liberals are having a hard enough time pushing half your Libertarian Agenda, Good luck, lol.

    • We need working class politicians, Not filthy rich Libertarian Scum Bags who care only for profit and not at all for jobs for the people…

    • What’s the point of all the wealth we have amassed through the destruction of this planet, just so The wealthy can hoard and the poor can rot?

    • Before you blow off steam and abuse us perhaps you could check and understand that libertarians have nothing to do with the Liberals.

    • Perhaps you could also consider emigrating to Venezuela, they have the political system you crave.

    • What a nonsense reply. What you are advocating has been in place for decades. What have we got? Massive corporate political influence at the cost of the environment, most citizens and democracy. You are advocating to increase this appalling political corruption… which will only benefit the one percenters. LIke that greedy, entitled climate denying arsehole Rinehart. She makes Venezuela look good. No thanks.

    • I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s bankrolling you guys. Your spiel reeks of her kind of crap. Liberty? Oh please…give us a break!

  47. Are you for real – now explain why it matters less who controls our politicians and therefore us?

  48. Have you not seen what happens when the Gov Privatizes our ‘Unemployment Problem’? We now have money that could be spent on helping the poor, going to Mulinational Max Employment, Who, in their best interest are doing all they can to create more unemployment and lower wages through forcing Slavery…

    • How does a job agency create unemployment?

    • By, making people Work for the Dole, They are in effect replacing paid jobs with slaves. Targeting low paid workers by replacing them with slaves puts these people in a situation where they too are now reliant on the welfare system… I was a mowing contractor, but now, the WfD mows these lawns. Some of these pensioners are on very good Military pensions, more beer money for them…

    • Why should an American Multinational be profiting from our poor? Would that money not be better off in the hands of Struggling Australians? Or does it not matter? As the Public are paying for it, and those with shares are the Beneficiary.

    • How about you tell me how you think job agencies have helped to lower unemployment please.

    • I have multiple spinal injuries, I’m one of those that tried my hardest to support myself for as long as possible, I’d not have what I have if not for continuing to work for as long as I could. However, I am now reliant on welfare, I’ve been classified by a Centrelink doctor as being unfit for full time work. I’ve been issued a Pension Card. However, I have been refused the pension? So, Job search agencies can still make money off my misery.

    • Do you Donate to a Charity that helps the unemployed? After all that is the Libertarian Way. Charity is all the sick and disabled really need right?

    • Or, would you say that I now don’t deserve any welfare until I’m penniless and on the street? I don’t deserve any Medical help as I didn’t have my own health insurance. Do you think I could have afforded health insurance while struggling to pay what I owed given that I already had issues that would have surely affected my eligibility/premiums? I guess you think the best thing I do is neck my self and stop being a burden, or commit a crime to help support the Private Prison industry for the benifit of share holders?

    • Is the Private Prison Industry to by Reliant on the Tax Payer like the Job Agency? Or is it to be Self Supportive, Contracting Slave Labor, Then, Job Agencies and Private Prisons could be ‘good mates’. Helping each other…

    • It would seem to me that the Libertarian’s represent all that Australians Despise about America?

    • As I have a broken back, I havn’t got much better to do that try and educate the Ignorant. I’am eagerly awaiting your side of this Debate. Or, do you plan to just block me as did the Cowardly Christian Porter.

    • And, What do you plan to do with my children? Obviously I’m not worthy if I can’t support myself, do you plan to sell them to Pedophiles?

    • I am just hoping to awakened some sense of Morality among those that feel they are entitled to take advantage of the poor.

    • LibertyWorks you are joking profit always comes befor customer

  49. but its ok for the liberals to ban union donations to labour BUT its ok for them to receive donations from billionaires in exchange for them not paying tax .once labour gets elected they should call a royal commission into liberal party donations and why big businesses do not pay taxes ..

  50. More remarks matching LNP so they can get more money that people don’t know about

  51. Do you really think the common people are that Stupid? I suggest you focus your Propaganda on the Sheep that buy Murdock’s Crap.

  52. I imagine part of the Libertarian plan would be to both censor and limit the internet to those that shared your views? Much like Israel wants to do. Because, I don’t see much support here, lol.

  53. Is this mean’t to be a joke????

  54. $100 max from Individuals. zero from business. citizens only and abolish political lobbyists. slash political salaries. end salary for life payments.

  55. We don’t have a true democracy. Politicians, after pretending to listen to the electorate during elections, promptly forget about them once their snouts are in the trough. Many, like Bernardi, are quite open about it. This is quite accepted with politicians being allowed a conscience vote on many issues, reflecting their own opinions rather than those of the voters. By eliminating ‘donations’, the lobbyists and big business would lose their influence over politicians, forcing them to resort to brown paper bags and other illegal means. This could result in prosecutions of politicians and those doing the bribing. Good thing too

Comments are closed.