South Australia's plan to ban political donations carries major risks, but additionally advantages

The South Australian government has suggested Ban on political donations due to the risk and perception that they buy undue influence and promote corruption. Prime Minister Peter Malinauskas said The aim was to “provide the citizens of South Australia with assurance that decisions are being made because they are right”, to not reciprocate donations.

Malinauskas also said the laws was challenging and provides careful consideration to how well it will arise to scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

So what does this law propose? How likely is it to resist legal challenges? And what consequences might it have for democracy?

What would the law achieve?

The Legislative proposal would prohibit political parties and candidates (except for brand spanking new entrants) from accepting political donations. Instead, they’d receive public funds for election campaigns and party administration. Campaign spending by political parties and candidates can be capped within the period leading as much as a state election to maintain the price of public funds low.

Political parties could proceed to receive membership fees of as much as A$100 per member. This is meant to encourage parties to interact with society and expand their membership. Otherwise, there may be an actual risk that parties supported entirely by government grants will lose touch with society.

External influence on campaigns

One of the largest difficulties in reforming political donations law is the dilemma of the right way to cope with third-party campaigners – people and organisations who should not running for election but have a political interest. These include environmentalists, charities, miners, welfare groups, business associations, trade unions, pubs and clubs, and indigenous organisations. If they spend greater than a specific amount on political expenditure within the period leading as much as an election, they have to register.

Attempts to stop third party activists corresponding to trade unions from expressing their views in the course of the election campaign have been struck down by the High Court. This is on probably why this latest system doesn’t impose any caps on political donations to 3rd parties or on their campaign spending. Third parties only have to fulfill disclosure requirements for donations, debts and expenses. They also need to use a “government campaign account” for donations and political spending.

Once political parties and candidates are banned from accepting donations and caps on their spending are introduced, there may be a risk that political donations will as a substitute flow to 3rd parties, who can then accept and spend as much as they need.

This gives third-party interest groups significant political influence. They can use their purchasing power to place pressure on parties and candidates to support their causes. This has the potential to distort electoral campaigns as well-funded interest groups dominate the discourse and force political parties to bounce to their tune.

A greater approach is likely to be to impose fastidiously measured spending caps on third parties that allow them to effectively communicate their policy views without dominating the election campaign on the expense of the parties and candidates.

Rules on “affiliated companies”

Where expenditure caps apply, it will be important to stop the parties from circumventing them by establishing third-party affiliates with their very own caps or, as within the case of South Australia, by not setting any expenditure cap in any respect.

The proposed law prohibits collusion between a political party and a 3rd party to bypass the spending cap. In addition, any donation to an “affiliated entity” will likely be treated as a donation to the party with which it’s affiliated.

What is controversial is that the definition of an associated entity explicitly excludes “registered industrial organizations” (trade unions). However, union membership fees are treated as donations and fall under the donation ban.

Preferential treatment of incumbents

Another problem with public financing programs is that they are often skewed in favor of major parties and incumbent politicians. This is because they’re tied to the variety of first-past-the-post votes that candidates receive and/or the variety of seats a celebration wins within the election.

For example, if donations are banned, the SA program will provide funding for party administration between elections. The funds are allocated to a registered political party in accordance with its variety of MPs. The funds subsequently not only favor incumbents, but additionally have the effect of favoring the federal government (which normally has essentially the most MPs) over the opposition and smaller parties, regardless that all parties face lots of the same administrative costs.

While 50% of those funds have to be used for administration, the remaining could also be used for election campaign expenditure, thereby increasing the quantity available to incumbent parties and favoring the party that won essentially the most seats within the previous election.

Independent MPs receive a smaller amount of administrative support, which they will use for whatever they need. In addition, MPs have staff and various allowances that give them a big advantage during election campaigns.

New political parties and latest independent candidates receive none of this support. Their only compensation is that they’re exempt from the ban on political donations and may subsequently raise a maximum of $2,700.

There are also differences by way of the advance funding of election campaigns. Under the SA program, registered political parties can apply for a portion of their campaign funding upfront, calculated on the premise of the first-past-the-post votes received by the candidates supported by the party within the previous general election.

Because latest entrants haven’t any previous electoral record, they only have access to a comparatively small fixed sum of money up front per candidate they support. They can even only claim this amount in the event that they can list enough voters supporting them (100 for a candidate for the House of Representatives and 500 for a candidate for the Legislative Council). If they don’t receive not less than 4% of the first votes in the following election, they should not eligible for any public funds in any respect.

Why is that this necessary? First, because a healthy democracy must address newcomers, competition and upheaval. A law that only protects and supports existing parties is prone to result in political stagnation and a lack of public engagement in politics.

Secondly, the High Court in Australian Capital Television case The invalidity of a law on political promoting was overturned on the grounds that it unfairly favored incumbents. The law banned political promoting in electronic media, except totally free political advertisements, 90% of which were allocated to parties with elected members based on their share of first-past-the-post votes within the previous election.

Only 10% of the free airtime was allocated to latest and independent candidates. This was not enough to save lots of the law. Justice McHugh argued that one couldn’t attempt to justify a law as equal opportunity if it “favored incumbent members and their political parties at the expense of the views of those who do not have political power.”

Whether the SA programme has done enough to support latest participants is a matter for the High Court to evaluate if the programme is challenged.

Constitutional challenges

Any law restricting political promoting may be challenged on the grounds that it violates the constitutionally enshrined freedom of political communication. In addition to the chance that the law is skewed an excessive amount of in favour of incumbents, the High Court has previously also struck down a law that may have banned political donations from organizations and individuals who should not registered to vote.

In this case, nevertheless, there was a niche between the quantity of public funding provided and the spending cap that the party needed to finance, including through donations. Whether an excellent broader ban (banning all political donations) can be valid may rely on the connection between the spending cap and the assorted forms of funding paid to parties, independents and latest entrants.

---

---

Could this occur on the federal level?

The federal government has signalled that it’s fascinated about electoral reform. We don’t yet know its plans.

But considered one of the benefits of the federal system is that states can experiment with reforms on a smaller scale, so the remaining of the country can see whether or not they work and needs to be adopted elsewhere.

The SA proposal is one such experiment. If it’s accepted, survives all constitutional disputes and achieves its goals, others will probably adopt it. But first it must prove itself.