This week the Australian Electoral Commission's uploaded to its website the declarations of political parties of their donors for July 2013 to June last year — including the crucial six months before the November 2013 federal election that swept Abbott and the Coalition to power.

It confirms big money still dominates federal politics, where businesses and individuals seeking policy favours shower parties with obscene amounts of cash.

It also served as a reminder that the federal disclosure system remains broken. First, anyone donating below the threshold of $12,400 does not have to declare it and nor does the recipient.

That's more than ten grand you can drop on a party without anyone being any the wiser — 12 times times the $1000 threshhold in NSW for state elections.

Second, note the amount of time it has taken us to learn who bestowed their generosity on the parties in the lead up to polling day. The disclosures were published on Monday. That's more than a year since the election was decided.

What does any of this have to do with NSW and the forthcoming state election on March 28? Quite a lot, given the way political parties are structured.

In NSW, of course, the donations landscape has changed quite radically in recent years.

Thanks to legislation passed by the former Labor government with the support of the Greens, individuals and companies can donate a maximum of $5000 per year to political parties and $2000 to individuals.

The fallout from the NSW Liberal party being dragged through the Independent Commission Against Corruption over allegations it rorted donations laws before the March 2011 state election led to Premier Mike Baird ordering a review. An expert panel led by businesswoman Kerry Schott has recommended wholesale change.

In the interim he has announced new disclosure rules for this election. Instead of waiting until after the election to learn who has donated to parties in the six months before the poll, Baird has ensured parties must make their public declarations a fortnight before the election.

It's a great step forward in transparency that will give voters the additional information of who is backing whom when deciding how to cast their vote.

The bigger problem, though, lies elsewhere.

According to the AEC's records for the latest period, the NSW division of the Liberal party received more than $10 million during the reporting period from various supporters.

Under the rules, this money cannot be spent on state campaigns as it has been given for federal purposes.

But it is patently ridiculous to argue that a donation of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to the NSW division of a party for federal purposes will have no influence on state decision making.

Indeed, the latest federal disclosures contain some interesting examples of donations far exceeding the state threshold from companies with mainly state-based interests and who would also likely be banned from donating in state elections.

Take Yuhu Group, which would be classed as a property developer for the purposes of NSW state elections and therefore not allowed to donate.

Yet it legally dropped more than $100,000 on the NSW division of the Liberal party.

A YuHu Group subsidiary, YuHu Property has purchased the Eastwood Shopping Centre complex and has development approval for a $200 million redevelopment (the company points out the approval was granted before it purchased the centre and before the donation).

Then there's Beechwood Homes in Wetherill Park — also a development company — which gave $15,000.

Beechwood was the subject of internal Liberal party inquiries in 2012 after it attended a fundraiser at which attendees bid $2000 each to have lunch with then NSW FairTrading Minister, Anthony Roberts.

The development company Walker Group Holdings gave the NSW Liberals $20,000.

In its report to Baird in December, the Schott panel on political donations recommended that he "support co-ordinated national reform of election funding laws, and seek to put the issue on the COAG agenda".

That's a direct call for Baird to use his influence to force change at a national level. The latest AEC disclosures show exactly why he needs to act.