Legalised Theft
The Auditor-General and Solictor-General find that Labour’s $446,000 pledge cards are electioneering (wow what a surprise), so what is Labour’s response?
Not to pay it back, no. But to propose state funding of political parties, so they can do it again in future, without challenge.
Now look as a (semi-retired) party activist, state funding is superb for people like me. I’ve spent 20 years doing the following:
* Buying $100 raffle tickets for prizes I don’t even want
* Spending dozens of hours organising sausage sizzles, quiz nights, movie outings to make a few hundred dollars
* Attending numerous over-priced cocktail functions, just so I can “meet” an MP (never mind I was seeing them almost every day at work anyway)
* Trying to sell raffle tickets to my friends, and them guiltily when falling short buying the rest myself
* Responding to HQ direct mail appeals
* Donating to local campaigns
* Hand delivering letters to save on postage
Now hell you have to be mashochistic to not want state funding of parties if you are an activist. It’s like nirvana. But it’s wrong all the same.
It’s good for a party to have to work hard to earn its money. It’s good that when you are out of touch with your supporters that your funding declines. It’s good that your sucess is linked to how many dedicated activists will sweat and toil for the party. They all help keep a party honest.
A party which is less reliant on its members and activists, is a less democratic party. Having to work hard for your funding is good for the soul. Student Associations are a classic example of what happens when you just get your funding given to you without having to earn it.
August 11th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Absolutely agree with you.
Another example is voluntary unionism, and how now that it is getting diluted just means union members doing what they are told.
August 11th, 2006 at 8:50 am
I agree with you that parties need to be accountable to their grassroots David. I do, however, have a problem with parties getting massive funding from business interests or anonymous donors.
Perhaps we could just restrict the amount of money that can be donated by any one person or organisation, and ban anonymous donations?
August 11th, 2006 at 8:54 am
I agree with you that parties need to be accountable to their grassroots David. I do, however, have a problem with parties getting massive funding from business interests or anonymous donors.
Perhaps we could just restrict the amount of money that can be donated by any one person or organisation, and ban anonymous donations?
August 11th, 2006 at 9:10 am
Having people willingly fund the party shows that they’ve put their money where their mouth is.
It means the party *really* has support; not the enforced dictatorial support that they would get if taxpayers were forced to fund every single bloody part.
Damn, but Labour is showing it’s true colours now.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:16 am
State funding would help those parties who appealed to members with little money…
It does no good to parties who get money from business or weird religious groups. Of course David Farrar would be against this, his party has plenty of rich donors!
August 11th, 2006 at 9:23 am
You have got to love the faux surprise of Labours lackeys on election spending…
From Jordan Carter on the confusion around PS -”Each party does it because each party has believed it to be inside the rules, and Parliamentary Service again and again has said that that was the case.”
He seems confused now but had remarkable clarity during the run up to the election that allowed him to (as caught by DPF) do this…
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/images/vic13.JPG
“Now what is Jordan C doing in this photo. Looks like he is trying to hide something. Well yes he is. A fucking huge parliamentary crest on that banner showing that it is something else you and I have had to pay for through our taxes. I wonder how that fits in with parliamentary service guidelines -being at an election rally.”
August 11th, 2006 at 9:26 am
We’ve seen that the reporting limit of $10,000 can easily be got around by using trusts and multiple family members – so a cap would be useless. A cap would strike very hard against Labour who get big donations from Unions and Businesses, not private individuals. (Hmmm, on second thoughts…)
I also think all donations should be anonymous – if the MPs and Policy Committees of a party don’t know who supports them financially they will not be tempted into influencing policy to benefit the donors.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:28 am
David,
You make some valid points about parties needing to be connected to their grassroots, esp in terms of individuals fundraising and making significant sacrifices to support what they believe in. Fine as far as it goes. But at the same time you know perfectly well that you have left the door open for very wealthy donors to buy their own agendas.
Your post would make sense if the rules:
1. Required strict disclosure.
2. Required that all donations must be in the name of an individual. Names up front, no “trusts” or “think-tank” type middlemen hiding the real donor.
3. Stated a strict upper limit to the amount anyone individual could donate pa.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Tane – Hey you want to ban Labour getting $500,000 donations from the foreign billionairre. I can understand that.
Business donations do help, but generally it is a case of getting say 100 donations of $10,000 rather than 1 donations of a million.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:44 am
The somewhat hystrical reaction from Cullen and Peters is perhaps not surprising. Fascinating how Cullen is fronting the issue to take the heat off Clark who is the one really in the gun (she signed the pledge card). Classic ploy destined to fail. HC’s integrity is in tatters … PAY THE MONEY BACK.
For Winston First its a case of ‘they can’t’. Word is they are up for a substantial sum including a significant amount sheeted home to the Leaders Office. NZF m’ship renewals are running at less than 1,000 as their support base declines and they are in severe financial strife. Some are saying their new President is getting ready to walk. NZF is terminal.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Does The Parliamentary Service really have a watchdog role and is it competent (in the true sense of the word) to grant approvals or make decisions of the sort that Spiderman, PM, Janette and others are banging on about so much?
What is the legislative basis for its ability to make determinations and is it resourced to do so? If not the whole issue is a red herring.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:57 am
100 donations of 10,000 each! holy moly! I wish Labour could get that!
August 11th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Logix, DPF, I have to disagree completely. I don’t think private sources for electioneering funding are a good idea at all. It is very clear that election time advertising works, and it works in close proportion to the amount of money available for advertising. I don’t see anything democratic about that *at all*. Yeah you can put a layer of bureaucracy around the way the funds are given, but ultimately you’re giving the party with the wealthiest base a big advantage, because it’s supporters simply have more to give.
The real question to me is not the source of the funds (which I think should come from the state) but the level. To allocate funds based on the existing level of representation is to say that political power should tend towards monopolization. But it’s hard to say that funding should be equal for all parties, because there are so damn many. I can’t really see that the United Home Brewers Front should get the same advertising money as National. Then again, I don’t have any actual argument for that statement, and would be interested to hear if anyone has what they think is a good reason. Perhaps that party doesn’t get many votes *because* they don’t get any advertising money.
I think the two key aims of electioneering funding policy should be:
1. To give all candidates a chance to make their views known widely.
2. To encourage public debate of the clashing issues. By public debate I mean both ‘debates in public’ and ‘the public debating amongst themselves’, the more important outcome.
I think 1 is done adequately (but not well) by the current system, and 2 is done very poorly. Instead we get the ‘clash of the cliches’ in short sound bites, and the ensuing debates amongst the people are based on very little knowledge about what the parties really stand for.
Which ends up meaning that the debates everyone has amongst themselves during election time are as good as they ever were, but then the election happens and everyone’s left scratching their heads about how everything that had appeared to be consensus amongst partisans is utterly ignored, and a few key issues that were highly contentious become the number one priority for the new government.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Hey David – you could get your blog paid for!!
August 11th, 2006 at 10:18 am
I would have thought that although important, this issue pales compared with the $222 million spent on the meningococcal B vaccine, which was predicted to be, and has turned out to be, a dismal failure.
The shenanigans from the Health Ministry have been astonishing. They misled Cabinet into approving the vaccine based on no efficacy or safety data. The approval was based on manipulating the Medicines Act which allows for experimentation on a restricted basis and for a limited number of patients. The Ministry used the number of cases of all strains of the disease to claim there was an epidemic and to argue for a vaccine that was strain-specific. They claimed that many children’s lives would be saved even though they had no way of knowing if even one child’s life would be saved. Now the Ministry claims that two or three lives might have been saved (but they are guessing). They refused to admit that the incidence of the disease had dropped siginifacntly before the vaccine was introduced.
Jane O’Hallhan, the meningococcal programme director recently said that the decision to vaccinate had been a “calculated gamble”, one which clearly hasn’t paid off.
Why isn’t National hammering Labour on this issue? The Nats have been quick to have a go at public servants in general but here is a case where some fundamental principals have gone out the window and National hasn’t said a word. Maybe National would also have wasted $222 million of taxpayers’ money. It would be interesting if that blogophile, Don Brash, would explain the situation.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Ben W said:
“It is very clear that election time advertising works, and it works in close proportion to the amount of money available for advertising.”
This sadly is a nonsense. There is no proportionality at all.
Yes advertising has some effect but remember there is a maximum limit of around $2.4m a party can spend – around $1 a voter.
Now what state funding will do is allow a party to make the maximum without having to work for it.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:34 am
DPF, I’m not saying it’s linearly proportional, but increased advertising budget and higher levels of voting are very closely related statistically. If you don’t agree with that then why the hell do you think anyone bothers to advertise?
And your point about ‘not working for the funding’ is lost on me. I don’t see what your ‘work’ at sausage sizzles, or as a merchant banker, or whatever your support base does, has to do with your right to be in power at all. It is purely your ideas, your ability and your integrity that are of importance to democracy. Your sausage sizzling skills are an utter irrelevance to whether National should be in power.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Ben – of course there is some link but it is pretty weak and not proportional. There are many examples of the lesser spending party winning more votes.
And the point on funding is it is about community support. If you can not attract NZers who beleive in your philosphy and policies, then why should you get equal funding. And you also missed the point about the propensity for parties to get out of touch and even corrupt if they do not have to erply on members for funding.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:26 am
Why should I or any other taxpayer have to pay money to support a political party whose policies we are 100% against That is not freedom That is complusion of the worst kind.And dont blather on about the public good.Its about freedom damn it freedom.This is the thin end of a wedge that if allowed will be expanded into other areas where we now have a choice. I can see the usual suspects licking their lips at the prospect of holding this up as an example.These are the same people that would have us all buying the same brand of toilet paper if they had their way.This is a stalking horse by the Socialists to get more control over our lives.We must resist it with means available.
August 11th, 2006 at 11:45 am
One point many are missing is that it is not always about money either. It is easy to say that a wealthy benefactor can pay for his agenda to be furthered as we all presume that NZLP’s wealthy Australian had in mind. Whether or not that agenda is in his personal best interest is beside the issue.
But EVERYONE has an agenda. The sausage sizzlers and the raffle ticket sellers/buyers included. The agenda may be a passion for a better NZ and a particular belief in how that might be achieved or it might be much more narrow such as the cannabis reformers.
What else is politics all about if it isn’t about agendas both personal and philosophical?
If that can be accepted then there is no difference between a wealthy individual donating $350,000, 350 people giving $1000 each, or a manpower mobilisation of envelope stuffing a la FOL before the 2005 election comprising $1,000 of envelopes, $45,000 of stamps, $15,000 of printing, 600 people at $15/hr time value for 30 hours each over 6 weeks plus tea coffee pizzas and rent.
Each scenario is validly individuals supporting a party of candidate that for, whatever reason, they want to support. Why not treat them equally?
August 11th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
ooops
last para should have been “….a party or candidate that, for whatever …..”
August 11th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
If these criminals in the lair bour party get their way with state funding for political parties all further elections will brought by the party in power. They will effectively have the greatest access to funding and dictate what parties get what funding.
Bit by bit the freedoms we have enjoyed are been eroded by the power crazy socialists. If taxpayer money is used we will indeed be a third world country.
I would like to fund the party I want to vote for and not have my tax wasisted on some lair bour arsehole buying their way into power with my hard earned money.
Where are all the backers for the socialists, half a million can’t be hard to find or is your idealogy only workable if you have to steal others money-SCUMBAGS.
August 11th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
“Tane – Hey you want to ban Labour getting $500,000 donations from the foreign billionairre. I can understand that.”
Yes, yes I do. Elections should not advantage whoever has the biggest donors. That applies especially to National, but to Labour as well.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
But the truth is we have state funding of political parties through a series of complex rules surrounding parlimentary service funding and broadcasting funding money. Furthermore there is formal state funding in most democracies even the USA. BUT. There is no excuse for the Labour Party to get indeminified for its theft of money they knew they were not entitled to. They should pay it back. And any validation of this should be unvalidated by an incoming National Government and the Labour Party should be made to pay. There is a valid wider issue but the Labour Party is deliberately allowing that to obscure their blatant illegal behavior.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
DPF, if you think the link between advertising funding and outcomes is weak why are you constantly making such a fuss about it? You have never stopped plugging the pledge card overspend issue, despite basically saying it’s a non-issue here.
It *is* an issue and a really big one too. The pledge card overspend surely gave Labour an advantage they would not have had if they didn’t do it. The interesting question is whether it was breaking the rules or just sharp practice. And also whether other parties did the same thing in different ways.
Access to advertising is access to votes. Yeah it’s not linearly proportional, but it can make a huge difference, particularly in the close races. You might very well only get another hundred thousand voters for spending 20 million on advertising, but if they were at the balance of power then that might be 20 million well invested.
Enough on that point.
You ask:
“If you can not attract NZers who beleive in your philosphy and policies, then why should you get equal funding.”
How can you attract NZers to even know about your philosophy and policies if you have poor funding?
And I did not miss your grassroots point. I just thought it was a weak point. I couldn’t care less how many ‘activists’ there are working for any party, it doesn’t make them more worthy of power, or funding. The quality of their ideas remains the same regardless of the force of their convictions. I don’t agree with your semimystical claim that “Having to work hard for your funding is good for the soul”. The only relevant ‘work’ here is convincing people your ideas are right. How many sausages you cooked, or how much your rich financiers pulled in are merely undemocratic irrelevances.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Using public money for the pledge card is nothing, these thieves have bought the next three elections with working for families. I think clarke can even come out now and still win with family dole in place. We may as well give up.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Using public money for the pledge card is nothing, these thieves have bought the next three elections with working for families. I think clarke can even come out now and still win with family dole in place. We may as well give up.
August 11th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Using public money for the pledge card is nothing, these thieves have bought the next three elections with working for families. I think clarke can even come out now and still win with family dole in place. We may as well give up.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Political parties should only be funded from flat one rate for all membership fees. Thus the publicly displayed list of members defines the revenues of the party in any one year. The question is of whether there should be any regulation (limited variation band) for membership fee rates.
In election years parties receiving taxpayer funding on the basis of their membership levels and electoral results related to polls since the last election (for new parties membership levels and polling).
This avoids the time wasting to eek out some marginal funding edge and the influence of individual wealth on a nations political democracy.
August 12th, 2006 at 12:50 am
Political parties should only be funded from flat one rate for all membership fees. Thus the publicly displayed list of members defines the revenues of the party in any one year. The question then, is over whether there should be any regulation (limited variation band) for membership fee rates.
In election years parties receiving taxpayer funding on the basis of their membership levels and electoral results (related to polls since the last election – for new parties membership levels and polling).
This avoids the time wasting to eek out some marginal funding edge and the influence of individual wealth on a nations political democracy.
August 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Your points would be valid if National wasn’t constantly bribed by New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals through anonymous donations made through mysterious trust fund accounts.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
August 12th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Your points would be valid if National wasn’t constantly bribed by New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals through anonymous donations made through mysterious trust fund accounts.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
August 12th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Your points would be valid if National wasn’t constantly bribed by New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals through anonymous donations made through mysterious trust fund accounts.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
August 12th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Your points would be valid if National wasn’t constantly bribed by New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals through anonymous donations made through mysterious trust fund accounts.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
August 12th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Your points would be valid if National wasn’t constantly bribed by New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals through anonymous donations made through mysterious trust fund accounts.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
August 12th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Your points would be valid if National wasn’t constantly bribed by New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals through anonymous donations made through mysterious trust fund accounts.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
August 12th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Your points would be valid if National wasn’t constantly bribed by New Zealand’s wealthiest individuals through anonymous donations.
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html#gen0
August 16th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
The Labour Party recieves plenty of financial support from Unions either directly or through the CTU paying for pro-Labour anti-National advertising. They place this inside workplaces under laws allowing unions to communicate with members. The Labour Party has written laws to encourage union membership which in turn increases their funding and the funds available for the CTU to spend on political advertising.
Furthermore, the Labour party has had 7 years to abolish anonymous donations or set up state funding for political parties but hasn’t felt the need to do so until it has been implicated for stealing hundreds of thousands of taxpayers dollars for its own benefit.
It had plenty of time to consider an aerplane for the Prime Minister but didn’t feel the need to do so until Helen hung some cops out to dry over the motorcade issue. This government didn’t feel the need to follow up on the speculation either after the issue fell of the front pages.
Then there’s Ross Robertson’s code of ethics for MPs that they didn’t care for until one of their Ministers got caught out for corrupt practices, making conflicting statements to the QC running the inquiry and possibly handing in false documents to the same QC. I’m willing to bet that Ross Robertson’s proposals will be ignored all over again if the Field saga drops out of the media.
Dr Brash was right to call this government the most corrupt NZ government in 100 years.
December 21st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
pudendal puddling puddlers puddings
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
restates restamps restaffs resprung Mua sắ
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:58 pm
restates restamps restaffs resprung Mua sắ