Myths - Introduction
Even the most inaccurate assertion, if repeated often enough, assumes an air of truth when left unchallenged. So it is in virtually every field of human endeavor -- but most particularly in the world of politics, where exaggeration and misrepresentation are sometimes considered an art form.
It is no surprise that some of the most common assertions about money in politics are highly misleading if not altogether false. These "myths" -- frequently repeated in the press and in parliamentary debates -- cry out for debunking.
For anyone interested in solving the problem of money in politics, the first step is distinguishing myth from reality.
Myth 1: "The special interests balance each other out."
There is indeed a vast array of "special interests" with lobbyists who attempt to influence public officials at every level of government - federal, state, and local. There are thousands of special interest groups in Australia. The real question, however, is not how many special interests there are, but how much financial clout they have. Here there is very little "balance." Heavy-hitting campaign contributors who vastly outspend their opponents are as much in evidence at all levels of government. Many "special interests" have virtually no financial clout at all. For example, of the thousands of special interest groups that donated $40,000 or more, none represented poor people, parents of public school children, unemployed or under-employed workers, small banking depositors and borrowers, families unable to afford to own their own homes and those without any homes, or people dependent on public housing, public transportation, public recreational areas, public libraries, and public hospitals. Those who make big donations do so not in the interest of the public good, but in the interest of corporate or personal gain.
Myth 2: "Making campaign contributions is one of the primary ways that Australians participate in our democracy."
People with high incomes are much more likely to contribute to local, state, or federal candidates than those with low incomes. Of the 20 million people who live in Australia. -- fewer than 1 percent, gave direct individual contributions of $200 or more. As for the big corporate donors, no one should believe that money is donated because of any altruistic enthusiasm for democracy. It's all about buying influence.
Myth 3: "Money only buys access -- not votes."
One would have to be naive to believe that huge donations do not affect political outcomes. (Or for that matter the threat of not making a huge donation). Even if there is no direct undertaking on behalf of the beneficiaries, clearly it's about buying influence. Big corporate donations are predominantly just bribes - to think otherwise is naive. Why would corporations donate so much? Because they think politicians are nice guys? Unlikely. It's because they want something. And they are getting what they want. Both ALP and Liberal-National governments have accepted huge donations from corporations and individuals which in turn have made enormous profits from favorable government decisions.
Myth 4: "Privately financed election campaigns don't cost taxpayers any money."
The actual cost of privately-financed campaigns may not come from tax monies, but the consequences of such campaigns are costing taxpayers billions of dollars. These consequences include the myriad tax breaks, subsidies, bail-outs, regulatory exemptions, and other "favours" that elected officials routinely perform for their financial backers.
Myth 5: "It's always been this way and always will be."
For generations people have thought various institutions and policies were impossible to change. Yet history shows that the labor movement, the civil rights movement, and the women's movement did away with many unjust laws and practices. The history of democracy is the history of periodic waves of protest followed by evolutionary change. Our "long habit" of thinking that privately financed elections are compatible with democracy has already begun to change. Indeed, there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.