Our Experts
Quote of the day

"It’s not about any deep beliefs. It’s not about dyed-in-the-wool fervour and it's not about deluded optimism. Labor gets my vote because they're our best alternative"

Dr Lauren Rosewarn, School of Social and Political Sciences.

Latest Opinions
« Victoria's population expansion | Main | No excuse for delaying paid maternity leave »
Wednesday
Aug042010

Money politics damaging democracy

While voting has assumed centre stage now the Federal election has been called, electoral choice is ‘biased’ towards powerful and wealthy interests according to Dr Joo-Cheong Tham from the Melbourne Law School.

Speaking after  the launch last night of his new book, ‘Money and Politics: The Democracy We Can’t Afford, Dr Tham says voters don’t have to look far to see how money has ‘distorted and disfigured’ Australia’s democracy.  

“The big mining companies have shown us the political power of corporate wealth” he says.  “As a group it was reported they put aside $100 million for their ads against the proposed ‘Super Profits Tax’, with up to $2 million being spent each week to run the ads.” 

“Imagine if the homeless could spend that amount to highlight their plight and call for more public housing. Imagine if they, like the mining companies, suspended their ads and issued the government a deadline to reach a deal on public housing with a threat to resume their ads otherwise?” 

The covert influence of lobbyists also undermines the significance of election results, says Dr Tham. “Much of this activity occurs behind closed doors throwing up the risk that the rich can secure access simply by virtue of their wealth.”

Dr Tham’s book tackles the controversial role money plays in Australian politics and the fear that political power resides with only a few rich and powerful citizens and corporations.
His book points to the ‘arms race’ between the major parties which has reached dangerous levels, driving unsavoury fund-raising practices and resulting in increasingly unfair elections. “A level playing field in elections requires limits on the election spending of political parties, candidates and other groups.”

He says that further evidence of the undemocratic effects of money politics is the use of public funding in government advertising. “What is the justification for using public money to selectively promote the position of a particular political party? Is it not a misuse or even corrupt use of public funds? It seems unfair, given that other political parties are not able to enjoy such largesse. 

“The Labour party’s commitment to more rigorous advertising arrangements in the lead up to the 2007 federal election has wilted in this federal election year. You only have to look at how the Special Minister of State exempted the government’s mining tax ads - that had a budget of $38 million - from compliance with the guidelines on the basis of a ‘national emergency’.”

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend