The anti-jobs logic of the corporate donations ban.
by John
There is nothing the Green Party loves more than banning things or raising taxes. Indeed, I challenge anybody to name three Green initiatives in Government that do not directly involve banning something or increasing taxes on something. The latest – and by far the one with the greatest long-term potential damage to our democracy – is the proposed ban on corporate donations to political parties.
The arguments against the ban are legion, but have not been aired with any conviction by a political class terrified of a media environment which has turned “corporate donations” into a synonym for “the Galway tent”.
Hostility to corporate donations and hostility to business go hand in hand. The basic premise of the ban is that corporate donations are immoral because they may lead to corporate influence, and that corporate influence is completely undesirable. Corporate influence is seen as undesirable because corporations pursue profit, and – here’s the kicker – profit is not in the public interest, but in the private interest. As such, corporate donations represent influence by individuals and entities trying to sway politics and public policy towards their private economic interests.
This is the logic of the Green party – that profit is not in the public interest and that profit-making entities are not to be trusted. Banning corporate donations is an attempt to “purify” the political system.
The ban raises several important questions, though – questions that proponents of the ban don’t want to answer. First, if not corporations, who will fund our political system? You and me? Is the taxpayer to be expected to fund political entities and ideas that he or she finds anathema? Is a liberal lesbian Labour-supporting woman from Killiney expected to pay taxes that go to fund Cóir, should they ever find themselves in elected office? Is a pro-life Protestant expected to subsidise Ivana Bacik’s campaigns?
Second, is it fair that rich environmentalists like (to take a hypothetical example) Duncan Stewart should be able to give thousands to the Green Party, while Corporations who pay their fair share in taxation are forbidden from donating to a pro-business party? The Government has no right or moral authority to deem some political convictions more moral than others. Going down this road is to essentially say that in this country we regard all business as intrinsically immoral, and all corporate donations as an exercise in moral corruption.
Third, what is a corporate donation, anyway? If Michael O’Leary gives money to a political entity that supports transport deregulation, how is that any less “suspect” than Ryanair doing the same? Or are we to extend the ban to business people as private citizens, too?
Fourth, what does this do to our political system? Is it not an act of gross protectionism? If a new party wishes to form from outside the system and make an impact, how does this help them do that? Suppose we ever reach a point where we’re losing jobs and investment because of an anti-business consensus in the political system – how does a new party that seeks to correct that consensus have a chance if business is forbidden from supporting it?
Fifth, what about Labour? This ban prohibits donations from trades unions. If business deserves a voice, does not the worker, too? I might not like trades unions, but giving them a strong political voice is good for the many people they represent, and good for those of us who instinctively lean the other way. We should have to take their concerns into account, and their financial power ensures that we must.
Sixth, what does this say about our politicians? The logic of this ban is not only that business is corrupt, but that our politicians are equally, if not more corrupt. We’re essentially saying that we cannot trust pro-business politicians because they must have been bought; that we cannot trust Labour politicians because they must be owned by the Unions, and that we cannot trust basically any politician because they may have taken money from a builder once.
This is the Green Party telling us that we’re all of us immoral, and that any interaction we have with the political system must therefore also be immoral. It sends a signal to job creators that politicians are forbidden from accepting their support. It says that the same people who the Government not one year ago during the Lisbon referendum touted as guardians of our economic well-being (Intel, Ryanair, etc) are now untrustworthy and must be kept away from politicians lest they corrupt them with the same agenda that they’ve just finished touting.
It says to investors that the country is ant-business. It says to business that the country is a political closed shop. It says to voters that politicians are corrupt, yet tells voters that these corrupt politicians won’t be able to find a way around the new law. It treats us all like fools.
This is the Green Party in Government. Pick something you don’t like, and ban it. Pick something you don’t know about and tax it. Pick some boondoggle that will never work and subsidise it. It’s the politics of treating us like children, and it’s the politics of people who haven’t a clue about anything beyond the dogmatic rites of their hokey, quasi-religious, creed.
Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bosca and Tim Nelligan, John McGuirk. John McGuirk said: New Blog Post: The anti-jobs logic of the Corporate Donations ban. http://www.mcguirk.eu/?p=990 [...]
My instincts lead me to agree with you on this. While I’m not certain that corporate or union donations should be unlimited, they are fine to a point. I think for me it comes down to your third point. When people claim they’re fine with personal donations but not corporate donations, they’re playing with a fiction that there’s a difference between someone’s individual interests and they’re associational interests. Firms and corporations are a part of civil society, and if they feel compelled to fund a particular campaign, they shouldn’t be regarded with more suspicion than, say, a group who decide to lobby to save Dún Laoghaire’s baths. And as you say, during the second Lisbon campaign, they were treated that way.
This is an entirely a separate matter from whether the party or candidates wish to accept donations from particular candidates. I do think parties should disclose who they receive donations from, so it can be clear who they have financial associations with. Parties should give careful consideration as to which interests they wish to represent. But that should be a matter of party policy, not state mandate.
It’s typical “dumb government”; Because some corporate donations might lead to corruption lets ban all of them, because some quads might be driven in a manner that damages nature lets ban all of them, because cars are one of the sources polluting the environment lets tax them to the hilt.
it’s a failure to see nuances and a refusal to actual think matters offer and see different facets in a society made up of a multitude of people with a multitude of opinions and ways of life.
We increasingly see the so-called “tollerant left” being intollerant of anyone with a different point of view.
This measure in particular reeks of a wish to go back to a market-garden and barter based economy and will make us the laughingstock of the world.
excellent blog post. Nice to see that even though you don’t agree with Labour/TU’s you can accept their existence and validity. This ban seems based almost completely on the Greens own exceptionally moralistic party ideologies. Being the only party that refuses to take such donations, they have decided to even the playing field now that they have the chance. This decision has little if anything to do with the Left despite what Evert believes, and is simple pettiness and shortsightedness, which is not the preserve or any one political party or system.