(Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
The system would be anonymous to the government department receiving the donation.
It could be something as simple as an online donation - just enter your credit card details and specify the amount.
A hell of a lot of people would donate towards defence, considering the recent not enough tanks, body armour (and so forth) rhetoric.
I can see the NHS, the Civil List, Education, and so forth getting a good amount of donations.
Even anonymous donors are perfectly capable of showing their distaste or approval of changes in certain direction, for example.
Besides which, how would anonymity be enforced without literally following politicians around taping their conversations and reading their mail?
I think people here are severely underestimating how much of an ingrained problem corruption can become unless you are thinking all of the time about avoiding it. People are basically evil and selfish, if you let them be. At least enough of them are for it to be a major problem if the system even has a small window for corruption to take place. You don't even have to be evil and selfish - "good intentions" springs to mind. Those windows exist already without becoming doors
I'm sorry but I think you're idea is naive
Lovely as it might be, protecting democracy is important, and has to be kept in mind at all times because it isn't something that comes without considerable effort and maintenance.
(Original post by Wednesday Bass)
That's a very naive stance to take; that having private donors leads to corruption. Would you say the same for charities like Oxfam and Unicef? Fully funded by private donors.
If they set it up like any other charity, anonymous donations where people can donate as much or as little (or nothing at all) as they like.
Yes but Unicef and Oxfam don't decide our laws. They aren't democratic institutions. That's my point.
I don't have a problem with charity, of course, but you can't have a charity government, because all people are supposed (and I'm not even saying this is currently true, which it isn't) to have an equal influence (or rather, and equal chance at influence) - not one that is determined by their wealth.
Donations --> Influence there is no way around it.
If you don't think that people wouldn't use their money to try and run the country how they want, and succeed to at least a limited degree - you're the one with the naive stance. They already do, without it being virtually institutional.