Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs Real-time disclosure of donations would have told voters that Reece’s controversial proposal to sell off the Regent Theatre to raise money for the arts was coming from a man who had received $25,000 in donations from the Marriner Group, which operates the theatre, just the week before.What difference might it have made to voting if the public had been able to see that the man who declared he would not “accept donations from property developers in the City of Melbourne” had received thousands of dollars from Alan Schwartz, founder of the Trawalla Property Group, and his wife, Carol Schwartz, a former director of the Property Council of Australia? Or Harry Stamoulis, who along with Dug Pomeroy controls the rundown Coates Building at 18-20 Collins Street?SIG Group, which on its website describes itself as “an Australian-based property development investment group specialising in world-class residential, commercial and retail projects”, donated $20,000 to Reece’s campaign. Questioned about this, Reece said SIG was not a developer in the City of Melbourne and that the other donors were “property owners, not developers”. He said he asked many of the donors to sign a declaration to say they were not property developers to ensure he kept to his promise.These people include some of the city’s most respected business leaders, some of whom have interests in property development but would rightly not consider themselves primarily developers. Our scrutiny is not attracted by any question over their conduct but that of a politician making a pledge to voters.The donations to Reece’s 2024 campaign dwarf anything former lord mayor Sally Capp received, and are more than double those of the supposedly cashed-up “Team Kouta”.In the Operation Sandon report, IBAC’s 13th recommendation asked “whether the regulatory regime governing donations in Victoria would be strengthened by identifying and prohibiting high-risk groups (including, but not limited to, property developers) from making political donations to political entities and state and local government candidates”.LoadingThe case for a prohibition on donations by property developers, as exists in New South Wales, has only been strengthened by this week’s disclosures.While there is no suggestion anyone has breached any laws, we have no faith the system provides robust protections against the potential for future corruption, and it is out of step with what voters expect in 2024. And that is before one even begins to consider the flawed and outdated postal voting system.
