We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Political Freedoms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Regionalist Coalition
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 4062
Description[?]:
| An Act to improve the freedoms afforded to politicians and politically active individuals in their work and/or political expression, and to regulate funding of political parties and campaigns to ensure a level playing field. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Public financing of political campaigns
Old value:: Campaigns are never publicly financed.
Current: Candidates receive public funds unless they have raised more than a certain amount of money.
Proposed: All candidates receive public funds but are not allowed to accept donations.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Parliamentary privilege.
Old value:: Members of the legislature are not exempt from any civil or criminal liability for their speech or actions during their term of office.
Current: Members of the legislature are exempted from any civil or criminal liability for their speech or actions, but this immunity can be overruled by a vote in the nation's legislative body.
Proposed: Members of the legislature are exempted from any civil or criminal liability for their speech or actions related with the performance of their duties during their term of office.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The citizens' right to assemble in public.
Old value:: The police may only disperse a crowd if a state of emergency has been declared.
Current: The police may disperse a group if they believe it poses a potential risk to public safety.
Proposed: There are no restrictions on the right of citizens to assemble in groups.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:50:32, July 19, 2016 CET | From | Regionalist Coalition | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | Madam Speaker, I do not think I am wrong when I say, I am proud of Beluzian democracy. The very fact that we are all sitting in this chamber, debating legislation, each of us voted for by the people and removable should we fail to fulfil our duties, is a triumph to be commended. Today, madam Speaker, we wish to make that democracy greater. To ensure that we are never enslaved by money or by greed. To ensure we are safe to speak our minds and the minds of the people we serve without fear of recourse. To ensure that when we feel something is amiss, that we have the right to go out, to find others like us, to organise, to demonstrate, to make our voices heard. That is what our democracy has always been about - let us protect it. Article 1 of this Bill concerns the financing of political campaigns. Our current legislation on the matter completely disregards our responsibility to ensure that all political views are allowed to be heard. Forcing parties to rely on donations for funding will push them to serve only the interests of wealthy donors and large corporations. This proposal will secure equal and adequate funding for all political campaigns, and stop them receiving donations that can gain them an unfair advantage and give them a conflict of interest. From now on, if the CEO of the biggest company in Beluzia wants to pledge his support for a particular candidate or party, he better put his boots on and get door-knocking! In seriousness, though, Madam Speaker, it is essential we ensure fairness in the funding of political campaigns, and this is an important measure to take, to that end. Parliamentary Privilege is the subject of the second part of this Bill. Our current laws provide no legal protection for elected officials. This means Senators could be sued or otherwise legally challenged, for example, under defamation law - libel or slander - if they were to criticise a company which the Senator believed was using immoral tax arrangements. This could be used to control politicians, through threat or blackmail. Some of our friends in the chamber may be in this very position right now, not able to come out with a piece of information that would, if wider knowledge of it made possible, change the face of Beluzian politics. Having such restrictions on our representatives reduces their ability to call out injustices in our society, and stops them from properly representing the people of our nation. Allowing Senators parliamentary privilege is an important part of making sure that the people of Beluzia always have the ability to call out wrongdoing - wherever it takes place, whatever it is and whoever perpetrates it. Finally, I propose changes to the law concerning our Right to Assemble. Current legislation dictates that assemblies may be called off if a state of emergency is declared. Now, while this may seem sensible to many off us, I encourage Senators to eye this exception to this right with suspicion. A state of emergency can be declared by whatever government is in power. A state of emergency could be declared in response to anti-government demonstrations. A state of emergency could be declared by a President or Prime Minister who worries he or she may be toppled if opposition movements are not silenced. That cannot be right. Now, this change does not mean assembling in a group makes wrong-doers impervious to the law. We will still be able to arrest people who take part in vandalism, hate crime and those who commit public order offences. However, we should not let a loophole in our law allow the police to take away the freedom of honest people to organise and demonstrate their views publicly. Today, let us protect the political freedom of the next generation, let us galvanise our rights in preparation for the world of tomorrow, let us make a stand so our children do not have to and our forefathers did so not in vain. That, after all, Madam Speaker, is why we are here. Sen. Catherine Oaksworth Leader of the New Liberal Party |
| Date | 19:57:37, July 19, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | Madam Speaker, We wish to read out an excerpt from our manifesto of 4029: We have progressed over the past few years with the passing of the Campaign Finance Reform (one of our most major bills passed) 46 years ago. 46 years ago, all candidates would receive money from governmental funds and were not allowed to accept donations, which was a flaw, as it would mean that government funds would be used for other purposes rather than for campaigning purposes. According to candidate fundraising reports taken from the Beluzian Electoral Commission 46 years ago, 60% of the candidates in the 3980 Federal Election received money from the government for their campaigns (2700 candidates). Furthermore, we also discovered that only 1% of the 2700 candidates used the money given to them by the government (27 candidates). You may be shocked by the upcoming revelations, but 99% (2673) of candidates did not use the money given to them by the government and we found out that instead, they were used for other purposes, such as buying clothes, paying restaurant bills, buying lottery tickets etc. Reminding everyone about these allegations is the right thing to do, as it would remind people how corrupt our campaign finance system was many years ago. This number has been falling ever since and 5% of candidates in the previous election received money from government funded organisations (300 candidates) for their campaigns, while 5700 candidates was funded through outside donations and not from government funded organisations. But we discovered recently that only 40% of the outside donations were used and that 60% were from foreign companies or from large corporations in Beluzia. You might ask, who are the 60%? The Progressives? This was a false claim made by the Conservatives in an attempt to harm our popularity for the previous elections. In fact, the Conservatives were the 60% that used money from corrupt oligarchs. The Conservatives dared to defy the law that was set in place 46 years ago, which banned all donations from corrupt businessmen. But somehow, the second generation conservative parties did not bother to look at our nation’s administrative laws when they were first founded. We cannot let men of wealth bake the dough and let them be sold to grannies in exchange for sympathy votes. Not only must citizens rise up, great orators must rise up against the chains of subjugation and the nefarious barons that rule over them. They must fight against this corrupt finance system which, with its jumbo sharp teeth, is slowly swallowing up the yardsticks of the democracy of the mighty Beluzia. Beluzia must have an Administration who can reform the campaign finance system which is now broken. Beluzia must have an Administration who will appoint progressive Supreme Court justices who will overturn the Supreme Court decisions made by conservatives that allowed political parties to bypass the Constitution and who understand that corruption in politics means more than an advantage being granted in return for something. We must have an Administration who will fight to eliminate special interest groups and other types of spending abuses. We must have an Administration who will fight to pass an amendment making it clear that Parliament and states have the power to regulate money in elections. We must have an Administration who will fight for a transparent system of campaign spending. We also must have a competent Administration who insists on transparency on funding of campaigns, including the disclosure of contributions to spending groups and an order requiring contractors to disclose political spending. |
| Date | 21:45:31, July 19, 2016 CET | From | Regionalist Coalition | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | Madam Speaker, I thank the Beluz Progressive Democratic Party for the charming history lesson, however I fail to see what relevance this plays to the Bill before the Senate today. The proposals made in this Bill will reduce corruption, and I see no reason to jump to the conclusion that it will be 'broken' in any way by an inept Administration. In fact, distribution of campaign finance should be managed by an independent body. Further, I can assure BPDP Senators that abusers of the system can be tried for misuse of public money, which is essentially theft. Though I contend that should be of little concern, when the alternative potentially risks pushing parties to corruption simply for their financial survival. Sen. Catherine Oaksworth Leader of the NLP |
| Date | 05:29:03, July 20, 2016 CET | From | SLP-Libertarian Alliance | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | Madam Speaker We can only accept the second article, since senators should not have to worry about being hit by slander laws for senatorial debate. |
| Date | 14:08:15, July 20, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | Madam Speaker, Even today, there are still candidates that use funding from government funded organisations. Although there are 5700 candidates funded through outside donations, only 35% of the outside donations were used, lower than 32 years, while 65% of the money used were from foreign companies or large corporations in Beluzia. Who are the 65%? Us progressives? No! The fake progressives like the Libertarian Party. The Conservative-leaning party were the 65% that used money from corrupt oligarchs. The Conservatives dared to defy the law that was set in place 46 years ago, which banned all donations from corrupt businessmen. But somehow, the second generation conservative parties did not bother to look at our nation’s administrative laws when they were first founded. We cannot let men of wealth bake the dough and let them be sold to grannies in exchange for sympathy votes. Not only must citizens rise up, great orators must rise up against the chains of subjugation and the nefarious barons that rule over them. They must fight against this corrupt finance system which, with its jumbo sharp teeth, is slowly swallowing up the yardsticks of the democracy of the mighty Beluzia. We call for the NLP to rethink about Article 1, because by receiving public funds that might possibly come from government funded organisations, candidates might use it for other purposes, like the ones mentioned in our 4029 manifesto. Not allowing donations towards candidates by good citizens is immoral and does not meet our values of freedom. Without donations, our great nation will fall into a abyss of corruption and tyranny where the decisions made by the government our controlled by corrupt oligarchs. We ask the NLP, do you think our government is under control by oligarchs? If you say Yes, we say No. None of the policies proposed by the SLP, NLab and our party were controlled by the oligarchs. They were all based on the ideals of the people. If they were under the control of oligarchs, then the reasoning behind all those bills would include the names of government sponsored organisations, rich billionaires, large corporations. But the policies that were proposed did not have any of the items mentioned above. So we find Article 1 an insult to the people of Beluzia, but a stepping stone for the corrupt oligarchs to ruin our nation with biased and conservative views on every issue that faces our nation. Thank you and we yield the floor. |
| Date | 14:51:10, July 20, 2016 CET | From | Regionalist Coalition | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | Madam Speaker, I beg of BPDP Senators, please do not defile this session in the chamber with furthering of 'fake progressives' rhetoric. Libertarian Party Senators sit here as representatives of the people, you will be thanked not to throw empty insults. If there are concerns over illegal activity by candidates and misuse of public money, that is a matter for the electoral commission, the courts and possibly the Minister for Justice. It is not, however, a reason to reject legislation that would make corruption more difficult. They say that "not allowing donations towards candidates by good citizens is immoral", but as the BPDP should well know, how 'good' a citizen is is not always proportional to the amount of money they have. Allowing donations outright gives too much power to people based on the arbitrary indicator of how much money they have. In a fair democracy, everyone's vote should could for equal, but if someone can buy airtime on TV/radio, newspaper front pages, and scores of hours work of paid-for campaigners for their political interest, then clearly the wealthy have an undue advantage. This Bill will end that injustice. The BPDP then asks of us "do you think our government is under control by oligarchs?". My response is I damned well hope not, so before a corrupt government does take power, we need to take action impede such a situation arising. Surely you do not wish to stand in the way of that!? In conclusion the Senator states Article 1 is "but a stepping stone for the corrupt oligarchs to ruin our nation." I must confess this statement exasperates me! Disallowing donations and having an independent body give equal finance to campaigns is the only way to stop corruption creeping into our system. Pray tell, how would keeping it so major corporations and wealthy individuals are allowed to pour millions into a campaign be a system that will stop corruption?? The only reason for a party to reject the proposals in Article 1 would be if that party was already receiving excessive amounts of funding from wealthy sources, and they feared if actions was taken to stop that they would lose the unfair advantage they currently have from serving the interests of big-business and the super-rich. I certainly hope the BPDP is not in that situation, which is why as a progressive party I expect them to support this measure that is essential to combat corruption. Sen. Catherine Oaksworth Leader of the NLP |
| Date | 20:02:40, July 20, 2016 CET | From | Regionalist Coalition | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | I will now push this to vote, and I encourage all parties which believe in democracy, equality and liberty to vote Yes. |
| Date | 04:53:14, July 21, 2016 CET | From | Unsubmissive Beluzian Workers Party | To | Debating the Political Freedoms Act |
| Message | We only support Article 3. If you put that in an alternate bill, we will vote Yes |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 198 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 552 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Check out the forum regularly for game news. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken |