I find myself agreeing with the caping of donations at $30000 but also the public register of lobbyists is a fantastic addition. Get big influence out of our politics!

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'd be very curious to see how orgs like the Taxpayer's Union or Hobson's Pledge fit in. They are campaigning for our political parties but are not those parties, most of their work is not in actual campaigning but in sewing seeds of doubt or pushing certain views among the public.

I guess what the Greens are proposing is a lot better than the current state, especially the standdown between being an MP/minister and being allowed to join a lobby group.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago

    This hits squarely in my ‘pro-democracy’ sweet spot. Good stuff.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Political dontations are the worst. Even worse than donations imo.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Nice to see another party on board with Opportunity's cleand up politics policy.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Billionaires: roight. Ill just make a thousand donations from each of my shell companies, then.

    Seriously: its a start, but how does this stop the mega donors from doing just that?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    In the finance industry we call this KYC Know Your Customer, specifically the "beneficial owner".

    You tie the funds back to the top-most owner in any structure.

    You're also supposed to vett that the funds have providence for AML (Anti-Money Laundering).

    If that industry can do it, so can parliamentary services or whomever would enforce it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Didnt a bunch of these rules come in world wide due to the Panama Papers leak? you hear almost nothing about it but a whole bunch of laws about KYC came in from the panama papers investigation, its one of the reasons why trusts got a big nerf.

    there is a whole bunch to dig into but this look like a good start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    https://thekaka.substack.com/p/election-hoon-how-should-the-supermarkets

    This is a good look at the supermarket issue; also has the Labour spokesperson talking.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    What if we spread corporate donations across all parties instead.

    Ensure the target party gets the largest share of the donation (not necessarily 50%), but all the other parties get a slice of the pie based on their current number of seats.

    If you don’t have any seats, you get to keep it all (because you’re either a fringe weirdo, or new and need a leg up).

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago

    I think this is how it used to work. If some one donated a lot it acctually got split based on current percentage of seats in the house, not 100% sure hell not even 50% sure but something like that is scratching the back of my thinking cap.

    However this is unfair to the smaller parties because of the 5% threshold. Even if Germany is currently proving the 5% threshold dosnt work :(

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I should probably read the bills as I can't see how this enforces anything.

    it still feels like it assumes Pele are fleeing the rules and passing nicely, which we've seen considerably eroded as the current coalition emulate USistan politics

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/newzealand@lemmy.nz view that post
    [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    This would be a great but I can't see a majority getting on board

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    I'm against capping political donations or getting money out of politics. I think our campaign finance laws are good and could be expanded to account for the need.

    If you have money you can push an issue. It can be done via political investment or it can be done outside thr political system by ads which push an issue the part support. Having an incentive for money to be invested in the campaigns which is open and regulated is far better than forcing all that money out into the zero regulation grey zone.

  • source