Proposer: Nina Knowles
This motion seeks to establish a clear framework for rooting out, investigating and punishing corruption, money laundering and the acceptance of bribes by politicians from corporations. The Worker’s Party is dedicated first and foremost to fostering a fair and just economic and political system that benefits the working class, not just a privileged few.
Our motion proposes that:
- The Worker’s Party advocates for the tightening of existing laws and regulations that will close loopholes that allow for corporate malfeasance to thrive
- The Worker’s Party advocates for stricter penalties for individuals and corporations found guilty of corruption, money laundering and accepting bribes, including substantial fines, imprisonment, and disqualification from holding public office.
- The Worker’s Party advocates for the mandating of comprehensive transparency measures for all corporations, including regular audits and public disclosure of financial activities, and for whistleblower protection laws that encourage the reporting of unethical practices without the fear of retaliation.
- The Worker’s Party advocates for better collaboration with international bodies to track and recover illicit funds and prosecute offenders and global initiatives aimed at curbing cross-border financial crimes.
By adopting this motion, we reaffirm our commitment to creating a fair and equitable society where corruption is not tolerated, and that our economic and political system protects the rights of the working class.
Sounds good to me. We want our politicians to represent the interests of the people not their sponsors.
This is a good motion but I would like to express caution about the fourth item: “The Worker’s Party advocates for better collaboration with international bodies to track and recover illicit funds and prosecute offenders and global initiatives aimed at curbing cross-border financial crimes.” In reality many of these ‘international bodies’ have relationships with Western intelligence agencies and US imperial interests and are designed to pursue the foreign policy objectives of Washington and Brussels and of the corporate interests linked to them in order to provide funds to be deployed for state power and armament in the first instance and for competitive advantage in the second. They are often interlinked with efforts to impose sanctions regimes on States opposed by the ‘West’ and to target legitimate (from an international perspective) sanctions-busting. The definition of financial crime is critical here and we need to differentiate between financial crime as organised crime and terrorism and financial crime as a pseudonym for political pressure and the elimination of financing for liberation movements or maintaining state integrity under Western pressure. The solution should be a national one primarily with the aim of creating new independent international bodies more closely linked to the BRICS and their efforts at reform and to the United Nations. The removal of the fourth item for reconsideration by the NMC in the light of these comments might make it easier to pass the motion and ensure that it was not the cause of problems in the future.
Noted, with thanks! Perhaps I could have articulated it better. I will have another look and submit an amended draft.
I think if you simply removed that final bullet point in discussion with Paul and remitted discussion of the issue of principle on tha tparticular point and no other to the NMC/Political Committee then the bulk of the Motion would get an easy ride through Congress because the general principles are reasonable. Indeed, it would (in my private view) wrong for it not to be passed. I would then suggest to the Party that (assuming the amended Motion was passed to lay down the general principles) the general principles of the Motion are sufficient to ensure that a policy position could be developed that met what you intended. The issue is only that the definition of international dodgy dealing is complicated considerably by international agencies being pawns in the hands of those engaged in geo-political warfare. The principle though is reasonable and just needs further thought with insufficient time to get it right before Congress. On tha tbasis, I suspect we will all get to where you and others want to be.