The "options" seem to miss a certain set of logic. If these things happen in football we call it criminal. Yet we "allow" the arm-twisting, brow-beating, the promises of "aid" if people in the U.N. support the current U.S.A. administrations (Harvard-trained) choice of "Asian" UN Secretary, tolerate a bunch of "commissars" going from voter to voter as the Venezuela / Guatamala two-year seat with the "big" powers decisions go from 10th to 11th round . . . .
The attempts to frame the debate in advance are so "in your face" it makes you laugh. It was all supposed to get a rejection from the public in the spirit of "havent these MPs already fleeced you?" - rather than "so who IS buying them, what are they getting, doesnt this distort democracy a bit?"
The deeper questions have to get asked too, but DONT let THAT shoddy spin-job con ANYBODY.
The "report" is "interim" - that means its the bloke thats putting the report together saying "this aint my last word about it - but this is the sort of thing I'm coming up with - so far - but - what do you lot think ?" - so, you actually ARE asked for comments. DO !
4 options - as yet. (BUT!. . . . )
: same "status quo" - with retouching.
: increase public info about who donates what, with some further control over the total amount spent by each group
: actual limits to the amount anybody donates (ditto corporations, etc)
: "increasing public funds"
. . . . ( you see the bias already)
- increasing public funds might mean matching donations (double-yer-bribe!? less so if "capped", or "members/registered voters", but a bit of a bias towards the "WE are the place for the UPPER MIDDLE CLASS/ HIGH INCOME peoples purses. . . I mean, votes. (poor people also allowed, but dont frighten the horses . . . i mean, "serious"big funders. . . . or even the very, VERY "lucky" frivolous funders.
- increasing public funds might mean a flat "support" to each group, perhaps in relation to votes, voter preference, seats, or what happened after the second world war - oops - thats the UN, sorry. ( you comprehend how stupid it is for people to ask for respect for every resolution when sensible people say "but - thats the way things ARE." "QUITE. SO BLOODY SORT IT - WHATS KEPT YOU FROM SORTING IT AGES AGO?"
Quite. So, back to the bungs, the stitch-ups, the prevention of progress (OR modernisation!) in the actual "thoughtful, decision-making, democratic bit of society.
Hundreds of years ago - even earlier than !066 - the jury system was a serious step forward. Bit of a backslide since then, though, eh.

The gleam at the end of the tunnel isnt entirely fools gold though . . . . in the last bit of " - increasing public funds might mean" the reference to "targetting" funds for democratic THINGs - might allow some common sense to sneak in.
Above the groupings, the debates, the information we get to actually come up with decisions, the meetings - equivalents of "commitees" in parliament, but perhaps that have "virtual" discussion groups, with coherent, fact-based, easy to re-research, easy for anybody to engage with - (linux/scientific/engineers-style purposeful chats) or even support the actual thinking that is often the "nursery slopes" of ideas that are everybodys "mainstream logic" a bit later - the bookshops - the gatherings - the workshops that come up with the actual ideas that offer serious democracy a fun way to grow - for the good of ALL - as much as for the "people that bung".

input!