I am often asked the question, what do Australians want from democracy? What do they want from good government?

Reflecting on everything I've ever heard from every Australian in the research I've conducted over the last 15 years, I might distil it to this: a good government is one that makes it hard for people to buy a gun and easy for people to get health care.

Of course this is as much of a swipe at the United States as it is a comment about our country. It reflects the mixture of sadness and incredulity that many Australians feel when they see yet another school, workplace or church massacre of Americans met only with "thoughts and prayers" and no law reform. And plenty of bankruptcies declared due to medical bills.

On top of gun control and accessible health care, I would argue there is another American import Australians now are worried about — the influence of donations from the gun lobby on public policy.

The revelations that One Nation unsuccessfully sought financial support from the US gun lobby have justifiably attracted strong criticism from all quarters including the Prime Minister.

One Nation hasn't hidden its interest in relaxing gun laws; perhaps this reflects the views of its members and supporters. But research — including from the Australian Electoral Survey — shows that One Nation voters aren't comfortable with the idea of corporate donations to politics and worry about foreign interference in the form of donations. They think big business has too much power in this country and they see donations to political parties as one way they exercise that power.

In apparently soliciting money from the US gun lobby One Nation not only threatens to alienate conservatives but perhaps their own supporters.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 52 seconds 52 s James Ashby and Steve Dickson speak to a fake gun lobbyist ( Al Jazeera )

'Politicians and business are one and the same'

The scandal unfolding is just a more disturbing example to the public that politicians are hungry for corporate cash to win elections. In almost every piece of research I've conducted in the past two years, I've seen mounting evidence of an electorate that understands the connections between the policies that get pursued by governments and the business of party politics. "Politicians and business are one and the same," voters tell me.

My qualitative findings are mirrored by the quantitative work of the Australian Election Study, which shows a big increase in Australians agreeing with the statement "big businesses have too much power" — from 60 per cent in 1967 to 74 per cent in 2016. Only 9 per cent of us believe there is very little corruption in politics and only 12 per cent in large corporations. The research company Ipsos found last year that three in five Australians believe their country's economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful.

You can dismiss this as the paranoia of people without power. And it is not only a question of outright corruption. As the academics Carmela Chivers, Danielle Wood and Kate Griffiths point out:

Money in politics is regulated to reduce the risk of interest groups "buying" influence. Explicit quid pro quo is probably rare: as the saying goes, "you never bribe someone when you need them." But the risk is in more subtle influence: that donors get more access to policymakers, or their views are given more weight.

We seem to have had a uniquely bad mix of laws in this country when it comes to donations to political parties. This is particularly the case at the federal level (all states except Tasmania have made good reforms over recent years). As Chivers, Wood and Griffiths explain:

Under Commonwealth regulations, it can take up to 19 months for donations to be made public . . . Only donations of more than $13,800 are required to be disclosed. And there is no requirement to aggregate donations, which means an individual donor can make a series of donations below $13,800 without disclosure. The result is a huge amount of money in the federal system that we know nothing about. Parties received more than $100 million from undisclosed sources in the two financial years spanning the 2016 federal election . . . Donations can also be filtered through associated entities of the parties. This makes money (and influence) even more difficult to track.

To give just one example, the gambling, alcohol and tobacco industries donated $14.1 million to the major political parties over a decade, with the amounts given spiking during debates about the alcopop tax and gambling reforms.

During his period as Special Minister of State, Senator John Faulkner released a paper on election funding. It recommended disclosure of donations above $1,000, prohibiting foreign and anonymous donations, limiting the potential for donation splitting across branches or different units of parties, real-time disclosure and tougher penalties for breach of electoral law.

Former Labor minister John Faulkner. ( Alan Porritt: AAP )

In a speech to the Light on the Hill Society in 2014, Faulkner argued that: "Spiralling costs of electioneering have created a campaigning 'arms race', heightening the danger that fundraising pressures on political parties and candidates will open the door to donations that might attempt to buy access and influence."

He argued that without these reforms, public concern about political parties being more accessible, and even compliant, to large donors than their own constituents would increase exponentially. "Elections must be the contest of ideas, not the battle of bank balances," Faulkner stated.

Don't underestimate voters' interest in reform

Naysayers who argue that such issues don't interest the punters underestimate the intelligence of the Australian people.

A September 2018 Essential Report shows 82 per cent support the establishment of an independent federal corruption body to monitor the behaviour of our politicians and public servants, with no significant difference in support for this measure among Labor, LNP and Greens voters.

Various surveys have shown strong support for banning foreign donations and reforming the donations system more broadly. The Federal Government moved to banned foreign donations (a move supported by Pauline Hanson herself) but reform hasn't gone far enough; the whole system of donations to political parties required action to help rebuild public trust in government and democracy.

It will be fascinating to see if the latest revelations will affect the attitudes of people who support One Nation; like I've said, I am not sure it will. Perhaps the influence of money from America concerns them less than money coming from China or India. But whatever happens, the broader public reaction to this scandal should convey two big messages to the mainstream parties.

Protect our gun laws and clean up our politics.

Rebecca Huntley is an author, broadcaster and one of Australia's foremost social researchers. Her most recent book is Quarterly Essay 73, Australia Fair: Listening to the Nation.