Is a ban on political donations possible?

Despite the claim that they are "leading the world" with their law-making coming from checks notes the SA Labor government's communications department themselves, many Australians are lauding the announcement as the salve to the corruption-burn we have all been smarting from, for what feels like, well, forever.

In the announcement, Peter Malinauskas said, "We want money out of politics". But why? Why are political donations so bad?

Well, let's be clear, we aren't talking bake sales here. The problem with political donations comes when donors aren't really "donating" at all - they are purchasing political influence. This results in splitting our representatives' obligations and complicates their duty to advocate for their community when the people who voted them in want something that opposes the interests of a major political donor that has potentially facilitated their pathway to Parliament House.

The Grattan Institute released a report in 2018 called Who's in the room? Access and influence in Australian politics and this paper shed light on the extent of undue political influence held by corporate powers, unions and even non-profits. This report found that major donors to political parties are more likely to get a meeting with a senior minister, and alarmingly, ministerial time is expressly "for sale" at party fundraising events.

The SA Labor Party are not alone in their concern about money in politics. In November last year, The Australia Institute released a report that proposed reforms targeting transparency and diversity as an alternative to existing failed measures to balance the maintenance of transparent democracy with the influence that comes with the money that funds it.

Some of the report's recommendations included requiring disclosure for all political contributions by corporations including cash-for-access payments; lowering the disclosure threshold for individual political donations; introducing real-time disclosure; introducing a "mega-cap" to prevent election-distorting donations; investigating alternative methods to the current public funding model that would accommodate new entrants; and considering a ban on donations from companies who are government contractors, as well as those in the gambling, tobacco and fossil fuel industries.

Indeed, in March of this year, the crossbenchers moved to ban donations over $1.5 million and lower the disclosure-threshold to $1000, while also proposing forced "real-time" disclosures.

However, International IDEA argues that "Money is a necessary component of any democracy: it enables political participation and representation." So how will taking money out of politics actually work?

Well, that's the kicker. We don't know yet. I mean, we know what the SA Premier supposedly wants to happen, but we also know that he knows it will likely face a High Court challenge due to a potential perceived restriction on the implied freedom of political expression. This will likely lean on the precedent set in the High Court where a similar challenge to restrictive political funding reform resulted in an unanimous decision holding that donations are a form of political freedom and thus a ban is unconstitutional.

The inner sceptic in me can't help but wonder if this is a way for the SA government to keep an ambitious pre-election promise to the SA people, and be seen to be pro-transparency and anti- corruption, while remaining safe in the knowledge it would never succeed.

Furthermore, as third-party campaigners, such as Trade Unions, are not included in the "blanket ban" beyond being subject to greater disclosure measures, should the bill survive, it seems the harm done to Labor may be minimal under such a regime, while new parties and independents who lack the power and structure of an experienced party, will likely struggle under the caps instigated, despite the meagre allowances made.

There is a difference between dirty money and clean money in politics. This heavy-handed approach to be seen to be weeding out donation-related corruption appears to be a stab at the easy way out, knowing nothing will really change in the end.