A bribe by any other name

Why do we allow corporate donations to political parties? At all?

This is a question that occurs to me every year, surprisingly enough when the AEC release the (by now already dated) data on political donations.

This is not an in-depth look at the numbers. I imagine one of our more details-oriented writers is presently neck-deep in spreadsheets, and the Guardian have a nice snapshot in the above link.

This is me asking a simple question: how are political donations – particularly those by corporate interests – not considered bribes?

First, let’s regress to a year 11 English exam, and take a look at the good ol’ dictionary definition.

Bribe:

Verb – Persuade (someone) to act in one’s favor, typically illegally or dishonestly, by a gift of money or other inducement.

Noun – A sum of money or other inducement offered or given in this way.

How, based on this simple definition, can our system of political donations NOT be considered a bribe?

Do we truly believe that Australia’s corporations somehow have political convictions? That ANZ Bank is a dyed-in-the-wool fan of the ALP? Even if you did (and you’d be an idiot), how could you explain the fact that this year they will give roughly the same amount of money to the Coalition as they will the ALP?

Do we think Manildra just tossed a lazy $100,000 to the new Katter Australia Party because they’re fans of his outspoken brand of protectionism? Or that they know there’s a solid chance his party will have influence come July 1 next year, and they want to make sure the protectionism is their kind of protectionism?

Of course, these payments are not a bribe in the sense that there is no cash-stuffed briefcase, and no shady character asking for a specific favour in return for the injection of funds. But it is impossible to believe that companies who hand this money over expect nothing in return but good governance.

Anyone who is even tangentially associated with Australia’s political scene knows full well that the prospect of the withdrawal of ongoing donations can be a powerful motivator for political action.

Even when politicians of a nobler bent, such as John Faulkner, try to rein in this insanity, they lose. Today, the ALP watered down its own proposed legislation on political donations. In particular, it increased the amount you can donate anonymously at ‘public events’ to $1,000 from $50(!), and increased the transparency threshold for all donations from $1,000 to $5,000. It is noteworthy that under John Howard, this threshold was increased to $10,000 before Rudd lowered it.

But why is there any kind of declaration/transparency threshold? The fact that there is corporate pressure to hide their donations shows the semi-illicit nature of the payments. For instance, one measure that the ALP removed from their Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2010 was the prohibition on ‘branch separation’. That is, in order to avoid the transparency threshold, donors can continue to donate one dollar below the limit to each and every ALP branch in the country, increasing their anonymous donation by a potential factor of seven.

This is not just about the ALP, though. The Greens took a $1.6 million donation from Graeme Wood in 2010 (a decision which continues to reverberate within the party), while the Coalition clearly have no problem with making it easy for them to receive corporate cash. And based on the Manildra deal, it’s hard to imagine Bob Katter getting wound up about political donations.

The real question here is: why are Australians not outraged about this? The ramifications of these “donations” do not appear in the major legislation that dominates the news cycle. It is in smaller bills that pass unannounced. A tweak to export laws here, a gentle nudge to make foreign competitors in a certain industry that little bit less competitive. The laws have anodyne names like Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013, and no one hears from them again. Yet the TV networks did quite nicely out of that deal, thanks very much (incidentally, the most recent data show that the entertainment industry donated over $425,000 in 2011-12).

It’s hard to argue against individuals donating to political parties if they want. And making corporate donations illegal would undoubtedly lead to PAC-style action groups as seen in the US. But if companies thought that PAC groups were more effective than straight-up donations, they’d be doing it already. And ideally, if you wanted to donate as an individual, buy a bloody membership.

If a company wants to support a political party, fine. Let them take out an ad suggesting we vote one way or the other. Or let them support or attack a given piece of legislation (they’re getting quite good at that). But I can’t think of one convincing argument as to why they should be able to semi-anonymously hand money over to political parties for naked self-interest.

Why is any donation, incidentally, allowed to be anonymous? Any other statement of support for a political party needs to be made openly, allowing for opponents to debate you. But this form of ‘speech’ is somehow protected?

We have public funding for political parties based on share of the national vote. This seems a sensible way of funding political parties. Increasing the influence of corporate Australia to parallel the power they now have with access to the courts (and ability to financially sustain a court case) creates nothing but a new disempowerment of individual Australians.

And it should be banned.

Ed Butler is a recovering economist and novelty blogger, of the never-lamented Things Bogans Like. On about step seven of the requisite 12, he now works in communications and environmental advocacy. He is a member of no party, could think of few things offering less value for money than a political donation, and tweets from @fakeedbutler.