Tasmanians have two months to have a say on who is allowed to donate money to political parties, how much cash they should be able to hand over, when and how those donations should be made public and if limits should be put on election campaign expenditure.
But our state politicians already have had plenty to say over the past two weeks.
Every year, financial returns from the Greens, Labor and Liberal parties are published online. And every year the Liberal Party is criticised for accepting donations from tobacco companies _ the only major party still to do so in Tasmania.
Various Greens and Labor MHAs could be heard pillorying the Liberals in a gleeful free-for-all.
Greens Leader Nick McKim described it as ``blood money'', while Premier Lara Giddings said the situation was ``appalling and immoral''.
Opposition Leader Will Hodgman and state Liberal Party director Sam McQuestin may defend their record on supporting health reforms, but clearly it's not a good look.
The issue, however, is way broader than that.
The Greens now want donations from gambling and alcohol venues discounted too.
The Liberals say it's time union donations were looked at.
All of those are legitimate businesses or organisations that are trading legally, so where do you draw the line in creating state laws?
Based on an analysis of donations using Australian Electoral Commission data, if all three types were outlawed five years ago the ALP would have missed out on some $135,452 from unions, $50,000 from Federal Hotels and $11,220 from Betfair.
The Liberal Party, meanwhile, would not have been able to accept $50,000 from Federal Hotels, $7500 from Tattersall's and more than $40,000 in donations from tobacco companies since 2005-06.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Liberal Party is unhappy about the $1.6 million (largest ever donation in Australian political history) gifted to the Australian Greens from Wotif founder Graeme Wood _ but donations to national branches don't count.
Once particular companies or individuals are plucked out it is difficult to know where to draw the moral (or personal taste) line.
Would the Greens also disallow donations from Gunns? That company has donated at least $27,500 to the Liberals since 2005 and money to the ALP.
Liberal MP Matthew Groom described any attempt to restrict donations as a way of scoring a political goal.
``Only third-world dictators change the law to disadvantage their political opponents,'' he said.
``It shows just how desperate and panicked they are.''
He asked: why not alcohol outlets, fast food stores or gaming venues?
It is a legitimate question to ask as our parliamentarians are making the laws that directly influence how trade occurs, including trade that may be legal but is accepted as being specifically harmful to people.
However, more critical than restricting who should and should not be allowed to donate is making that information public as quickly as possible, and capping amounts.
At the moment, a large donation made on July 1, 2012, would not be made public for more than 18 months.
It is essential that such information is published online in real time _ allowing any voter to easily see who is supporting what political party or individual.
In considering the issue, voters should keep this in mind:
The only reason we know anything about political donations is because there are Commonwealth laws.
Under Tasmanian law, there are no restrictions on who can donate to a candidate or a party, and how much they can donate. There are also no laws requiring candidates to report donations they receive during a campaign.
It's time voters are brought off the bench _ and let into the secret.
Email a friend