Spending and Votes
In its jihad against voluntary private funding of political parties (so it can then claim the taxpayer has to be forced to fund parties instead), Labour and others would have you believe that how much money a party spends correlates to how many votes they get. Indeed someone on my blog has proclaimed the US elections are always won by the candidate who raised the most money.
Bryce Edwards correctly blogs that money is no guarantee of political success. Of course it helps to varying degrees but it is far from decisive. Edwards quotes from an Economist article about US elections:
Money is not a guarantee of success nor is lack of it a guarantee of failure. Phil Gramm and Steve Forbes have both proved that truckloads of money do not necessarily translate into political momentum. And Bill Clinton proved that you can win the presidency without being the big money candidate. Howard Dean has gone one better and proved both that you can succeed without money and fail with it. He came from nowhere to dominate the money primary in 2004. But his $40m treasure chest did not prevent him from imploding during the Iowa primaries
Now I thought it would be interesting to look at what linkages there are between campaign spending and votes in NZ, for the four MMP elections we have had.
The expenditure comes from the Electoral Commission and includes both the broadcasting allocation and the direct party expenditure. So what do we see:
NZ First and Labour spent almost the same amount, yet Labour got twice the votes. ACT almost spent the same as National, yet got one sixth the number of votes. The Alliance spent half of what ACT did and got almost twice the votes.
Labour in 1996 had the best return in terms of votes for dollars.
National spent over 50% more than Labour in 1999, yet lost the election by around 10%. Labour got a vote for every $2.05 and National every $4.36.
In 2002 Labour spent more than National by around 25% yet got around twice as many votes. ACT spent more money than National, yet got one third the number of votes.
The Greens got the same votes as ACT for under half the spent. NZ First got 50% more votes than both Greens and ACT despite spending 60% and 25% respectively of what they did.
Finally we have 2005. Note Labour for two elections in a row have had a higher total spend than National. This time they spent around 30% or $950,000 more than National yet got only 2% more. ACT spent twice as much as NZ First for one quarter the votes. The Greens spent more than NZ First yet got less votes.Of the parties that made Parliament the spend per vote ranged from $3.40 to $34.00.
So while there is a case for overall spending limits, any nonsense about buying elections is just that – nonsense. The last four elections stand testament to this. The impact of money on elections is relatively insignificant compared to policies, party reputation, leadership and media treatment.
So why do parties spent money? Well obviously it has some impact. But more importantly it is the *only* way parties can communicate directly to the public on the issues they choose in the manner they decide. The more you restrict the ability of parties to do this, the more power you give to the media, and especially the press gallery, to control what the public hear.
The proposal by Labour to restrict what both political parties, and third parties, can say not just immediately prior to an election, but for up to an entire 11 months prior is a blight on free speech and is more about silencing criticism than any notion of fairness, or stopping elections being decided by money. The public have shown for all four MMP elections that they do not largely decide their votes based on campaign advertising – such advertising is merely one aspect of a campaign.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Excellent research and presentation. Hopefully it might open some eyes to the nonsense spouted about National buying elections.
It also makes it clear how disingenuous the Labour spin is in this area.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:28 am
How much money did National spend on all campaigning from January 2004 to the general election in 2005? Does your figures include the billboard campaign? What are baseline dates?
April 13th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Thank you David; this is the sort of area where you come into your own.
But let me just say (before Sonic does) that National’s opponents will claim there should be another $1.2 million attributed to its spend.
That’s rubbish of course – a completely different issue – but I thought I’d try (probably futile, I know, given this forum’s conversations) to head it off at the pass.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Nick – that is a good point to raise. Perhaps instead of trying to head it off at the pass however we could just stipulate to it (for the sake of trying to avoid another go-around on the EB issue); then DPF’s central premise that money alone does not win elections becomes even stronger.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Yes, look how us evil ACT folk bought and won election after election.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:01 am
“Yes, look how us evil ACT folk bought and won election after election.
”
And I admire the way you hid it so well.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:02 am
So if advertising spend has only a minor effect – why restrict it at all?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Does the increase in election spending correlate with the increase in appalling child abuse figures and homicidal maniacs hurt feelings claims undoubtly signed off by the trany grany. When is Phillip Titee being charged by police for criminal behaviour and what’s Banjo Kahui doing today?
Shove your wombat political process up their corrupt bottoms for all I friggin well care.I hope the fools spend billions next election as I won’t be voting .What a bunch of manoeuvring nonsensical idiots , spend more please , no wonder we have such social problems .What a fiasco .
Would a real political party -please stand up -please stand up .
April 13th, 2007 at 9:16 am
So of money has no affect at all will you stop mentioning Labours overspend?
Thought not
April 13th, 2007 at 9:19 am
So correct Linda. There is no need for any restrictions on spending. Any at all. All this bullshit about a level playing field is just subjective nonsense and in the end just achieves the opposite of its objective ie a tilted playing field.
The only law that needs to apply is this- “No taxpayer funds to be used”.
Especially stolen taxpayer funds.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Linda – I think a case can be made for some restrictions to stop say a billionaire like Ross Perot spending $50 million and so dominating the air waves and newspapers (think ten full page ads a day) that the other parties get crowded out. But as this shows, a party can spend many times another party and get less votes.
I personally regard the limits as too low. A party can barely spend $1 per voter nationally and $0.50 a voter in an electorate. Limits should be high enough so one can send over 90 days say three direct mail letters to every voter and do some billboards, press, radio and TV adverts.
I would advocate $50,000 limit per electorate and around $5,000,000 for parties nationally.
TomS – they are not my figures, they are the Electoral Commission’s for spending as defined by the law, which in this case is 90 days before the election. There is a lot of research to show that advertising further from the election has less impact, which is why it is not restricted. Labour taxpayer funded bus shelter ads are not included either. It is purely the expenditures as defined by law as election expenses and broadcasting allocations.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Remember George Soros backed the Democrats in America, with multi-million dollar spends to help with advertising etc. He didn’t get the same return on investment he is used to.
Soros’s contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated “soft money” contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization.
If Labour are going to effectively ban non-party groups from electioneering, then they ultimately will ban genuine special interest groups.
It stinks that Dr Kiro gets huge amounts of government funding to pitch her “monitor every single child” agenda, and yet Labour deem it necessary to crush any repeat of a pamphlet from the Exclusive Brethren.
Any changes that impact on freedom of speech need a better process for change, than what Labour are presently trying to do. If their changes are fair and reasonable, let them make it a campaign issue.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:22 am
“overspend?”
That is spin for theft, right?
April 13th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Sonic -”So of money has no affect at all will you stop mentioning Labours overspend?”
Theft of public money is a crime in my law books !!
April 13th, 2007 at 9:24 am
I never thought the pledge card made the election-winning difference many have claimed it did.
That point aside however, the subsequent finding that the spending was illegal is of major concern.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:29 am
MR. Farrar, I know you’re trying (as always) to be so reasonable, but any regulating process has to subject to enforcement, and when you are dealing with funds of any kind, and the sources of those funds, this is often extremely difficult.
Regulating election spending is a minefield of legalistic impracticalities. I reckon the fiasco of last election (stolen by Labour) can only have one workable solution. No taxpayer funding and the removal of all regulations relating to election expenditure.
For God’s sake man, your imaginary Ross Perot problem is an insult to the intelligence of every NZer. Let candidates spend what they want where they want and leave the voting to Joe Citizen. This is the only workable solution. Anything else is just more unworkable bullshit.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Sonic -”So of money has no affect at all will you stop mentioning Labours overspend?”
If I had taken part in a 1 on 1 100m sprint with Ben Johnson in the 1980′s I would have arrived, gasping and puking with the effort, about 6 sec. behind him.
Regardless of the fact that, even without drugs, he would have still beaten me by a significant amount, that would not affect the fact that he had still cheated.
Whether or not the pledge card had an effect on the election result, the money was stolen and its use was deliberate cheating.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Sonic – your’e silence is deafening my dear wankster type person .
April 13th, 2007 at 9:33 am
I presume the 2005 figues included the illegal spending espeically by Labour. The latest morgan poll has Labour falling still though the Greens are doing well. National could from a Government possibly on its own.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:35 am
“Greens are doing well”.
Its harvest time Tim ask Phoool .
April 13th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Great research but it does only show that money spent is not the main determiner of votes received, not that it doesn’t help get more votes.
I don’t accept the notion that donations received is somehow part of the demcoratic process – that its ok for some parties to get more in doantions becuase it must mean they are more popular becuase it doens’t necessarily mean that, it may just mean they have richer backers (al la ACT). If spending money can increase a party’s vote (and they wouldn’t do it if it didn’t) then those rich backers of certain parties are having larger individual impacts on the outcome of elections than poorer people – that’s not how demcoracy should work, the level of your enfranchisement should not be affected by your ability to donate money, it should be equal for all.
I’ve still yet to hear an answer as to why parties of the same size shouldn’t have the same amount of money to spend – thats pretty much what happens with the allocated broadcasting time at the moment (although one could argue it prevents small parties from growing).
April 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
David, Don Brash asserted that Labour won the last election due to massive spending in the last few days of the campaign, (I remember you supporting that claim- did you not?)
Is this claim (and your support?) as reliable as everything else Brash dribbled out? (now that it is inconvenient, that is).
If so, then nice flip flop (nearly as good as your section 59 flip flop). The only thing consistent about you is your inconsistency, very entertaining though, good humour.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Sam
Don’t ever lose sight of the fact that the major factor in the number of votes cast in favour of a party or candidate is the number of votes cast for the party or candidate. i.e. money doesn’t vote, people do and in the final analysis it is people who mark the ballot. What influences those people is clearly shown by David’s time series to be the promise of personal gain rather than persuasive argument (or in Ben’s world – propoganda).
Well that’s my 10cents worth anyway
April 13th, 2007 at 9:58 am
“then those rich backers of certain parties are having larger individual impacts on the outcome of elections than poorer people – that’s not how demcoracy should work”
I’m not sure I agree with you on that one Sam.
There is a very valid argument for the opposite, because the greater the resources a person has responsibility for, the larger the impact that Govt policy has on that individual.
Not only that, but if a person owns a business that employs several 1000′s of people, and Govt policy impacts directly on the viability of that company, then the business owner, in influencing Govt policy is acting as a representative of his/her employees in a similar manner to which a union does (even if it is not recognised in that way by the employees- unless the business fails).
If you stop rich backers from influencing elections, then, unless you also curtail parties from using benefits as an election tool, you create an imbalance.
Julius Caesar was an expert at buying votes from the unemployed mob using the Circus and bread. The problem was that after a while it became the only way of maintaining power- and the problem became worse with succeeding Caesars. It is something we have chosen to allow ourselves to forget.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I can’t see what the problem is. Let the Nazies in the Liarbour party bring in any laws and set any limits they like. This will be like a red flag to a bull when it comes to the general publics notice and any such laws will be treated with the contempt they deserve. The prisons are full now where are they going to put the other 2/3rds of the country that will not play ball when election time comes around.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am
james cairne
Not spending on advertising but more spending tax money as incentives I think you’ll find. A La student funding free child care and WFF
April 13th, 2007 at 10:06 am
James C “If so, then nice flip flop (nearly as good as your section 59 flip flop).”
Are you a witch,wacko or a weirdo government bogan or shrill puppet ???
April 13th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Vanzylnz, no, I am referring to his claim r.e campaign spending, although you are right, he did also state that.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:11 am
You need to run a correlation test.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:14 am
James C
Had a quick search and cant find any reference other than the actual campaign promises. Will stand corrected if you can provide links
April 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
“the greater the resources a person has responsibility for, the larger the impact that Govt policy has on that individual.”
More votes for the rich?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Vanzylnz -Theft of public money – crime or not ?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Vanzijl, i found this in about five seconds http://subs.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10397746
April 13th, 2007 at 10:19 am
James C – theft of public money crime or not ?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:20 am
What the research shows is that money doesn’t have much of an impact on how well the message is received or how effective the message is, but it does ensure that voters do receive the message.
The same can be said for media coverage generally. There are no restrictions on how much media coverage a political party can get at election time: that is governed entirely by the Press Gallery and what they choose to report on, and how they choose to report it. Without spending by political parties pushing their own issues to parties, as DPF has noted, the public is putting its faith in the press gallery to decide on the public’s behalf what is, and what is not important.
Voters understand ACT’s position. They just overwhelmingly disagree with the ACT party.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I would like to see one good reason to back up the view that taxpayers should provide funding for political parties. Before the lefties get in with their customary bullshit about “fairness’ and “the poor people” (and all of the other crap they use to justify their obsession with power), don’t abuse the concept of fairness, and don’t insult the intelligence of the voters. Its time to stop the looting of the public purse by corrupt venal power seeking politicians like Helen Klark and her cronies, and where better to start, where better to give these bastards the message, than in electoral funding?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:23 am
James C
Yep read that but as far as I can see he is talking about the theft of taxpayer money. I must be thick but I believe the trust is the criminal acts by the government (no longer criminal of course because of retrospective legislation.) Still cannot see any reference that advertising won it.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:24 am
May it be that a White Elephant liebour stands presently before each and every family, child and citizen of what might otherwise be referenced of civil democratic society?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Hi Peter, yes, theft is a crime, good boy.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Interesting research, but there are two issues at stake here.
One is, yes, that large donations can help buy votes, but the other is that a few large donations can swing government policy should the party that receives the donations win the election. For me that’s the more important of the two concerns.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:28 am
James C “Hi Peter, yes, theft is a crime, good boy.”
Who is accountable for the pledgecard fiasco. Has the money been paid back yet ?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:31 am
do you have a point Peter?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:33 am
“Voters understand ACT’s position.”
Have to disagree there. ACT have been the victim of a massive denigration campaign by the left and their media acolytes. Most of the people I speak to about ACT have no idea, and think about the party only in terms of the Left’s misrepresentations.
The failure of non left parties to get their message to the public is the result of a chronic failure to develop a strategy to counter the left’s control of the mainstream media. Most even refuse to acknowledge that such control is a fact of political life.
Non socialist parties have to start giving priority to this issue, or the left will continue to win the propaganda war they have been winning for a couple of decades.
The inherent leftist sympathies of the mainstream media give the left a massive advantage in every issue put before the public. The issue that is the subject of this thread is another such example. They might sometimes make noises, but in the end, the mainstream media always come out favouring the leftist viewpoint.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:33 am
I suggest the government actions are sufficient grounds for a malfeasance case ?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:44 am
“Have to disagree there. ACT have been the victim of a massive denigration campaign by the left and their media acolytes.”
I disagree with you on that one – I think that the very low calbre of ACT MPs in recent terms (Coddington, Newman come to mind in particular), and some of their idiotic pronouncements & behaviour has revealed them to be unworthy of votes.
I don’t think the dancing helped cement their hardworking inage either.
“Most of the people I speak to about ACT have no idea, and think about the party only in terms of the Left’s misrepresentations.”
Most people I speak to consider them a joke & as I said, base that on the behaviours they have observed – most consider the media a joke too.
But I do agree that most people have no idea – about much at all.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Sonic – I didn’t say money has no effect. A 30% overspend with a 2% margin may have made the difference, or it may not have. If you have rules, they should be enforced. A corrupt practice is still a corrupt practice, even if you do not win because of it.
Tim Barclay – they include the pledge card, but not the other $400,000 found by the AG. It is based on the official return.
Sam – National has five times as many members as Labour so why shouldn’t National get five times as much income? Your notion of equality is nonsense as it only applies to money. Why should all those left wing lobby groups get so much airtime calling for more money? Lets regulate them also so it is a fair contest. Your proposal would lead to a US style system where dozens of PACs get set up and they spend all the money. And those PACs, unlike parties, would not be as accountable.
James – I do not believe I have ever asserted that Labour won the election due to their over-spending. I have said it is possible, that the 30% overspend was the 2% difference, but that there is no way of knowing. And be very careful about accusing me of hypocrisy. I have zero tolerance for accusations like that.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:47 am
This is gold: “The failure of non left parties to get their message to the public is the result of a chronic failure to develop a strategy to counter the left’s control of the mainstream media. Most even refuse to acknowledge that such control is a fact of political life.”
What anonymous freak wrote this? “Control” of the MSM by this “The Left” is a “political fact” Pure gold!
Nothing like half-wit moon-bat conspiracy theories for day time humour.
Now, back to the puppet strings of the NZ Herald …..
April 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Libertarianz – $60,532.84 – 946 votes.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
April 13th, 2007 at 10:49 am
I see the Brethren have came out swinging over the issue
Oops.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Hi llew –do you think the spineless media will ever be able to undo the handcuff’s that supreme leader has placed on them ?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Oh, Charlie, now I understand.
Your concern is that organisations or individuals giving large amounts of money and support to a political party might get a pay-back in terms of policy.
Completely different, of course, to the policy pay-backs to the unions by the Labour Party in exchange for union support tho’, isn’t it?
April 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Charlie Tan said
” ..One is, yes, that large donations can help buy votes, but the other is that a few large donations can swing government policy should the party that receives the donations win the election.”
evidence please for either assertion – please don’t expect us to treat opinion in the same light as facts. Sounds a bit like Pols102 BS to me.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:58 am
NZ Union officials like Russia comrade sir .
April 13th, 2007 at 10:58 am
The unions support the Labour party!
Egads, why does no-one know about this?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Thank you sonic – I rest my case !!
April 13th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Charlie you said “One is, yes, that large donations can help buy votes, but the other is that a few large donations can swing government policy should the party that receives the donations win the election. For me that’s the more important of the two concerns.”
That latter point is covered by abolishing anon donations over a certain limit – something that has bipartisan support.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Just making the point that every voter knows about Labour’s relationship with the trade unions, and can take that into account when they choose who they will support.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:23 am
“Hi llew –do you think the spineless media will ever be able to undo the handcuff’s that supreme leader has placed on them ?”
Well I don’t really see a left wing bias in the media at all. I just see lazy journos.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Yes Frank everyone knows that Labour diverts tax payers money to themselves via union laundering.
That makes it ok.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:28 am
No, Sonic. You’re claiming an exemption to unions based on Labour’s historical pro-union affiliation. Yet you deny that National should have a relationship with business based on its founding principles being pro-individual ownership and pro-property rights.
By your argument, I could say: “Whoopdy shit. Some rich people support the National Party.”
What we’re discussing is the direct relationship that parties have with their influential interest groups, and the advantages that those relationships give them in campaigning and fundraising. Labour has a massive fundraising advantage due to its relationship with unions; at the organisational level it means that Labour can function as a party with just 20% of National’s membership.
National has a few wealthy supporters–as does Labour, by the way. But it also has more than 25,000 members, who clearly don’t feel that the relationship that the few wealthy supporters has with the party is greater than individual membership.
Labour wants to cut off one source of National Party funds, while maintaining its own support base as much as possible. The only reason Labour has for this is that it has run out of money and needs to skew things in its favour for the next election.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:32 am
DavidW,
I have already cited evidence for this. There is something political scientists (yes, the guys who brought you 102) call a “corruption index”. It measures the levels of corruption in a given nation. I believe it has been cited on this website before.
A recent peer-reviewed study shows that those nations on the corrupt end of the index are also those nations that do not have a system of state funding for parties. Certainly there are exceptions and New Zealand has been one of them, but in general the data shows that there is an inverse correllation between state funding for parties and corruption. The authors go on to say that in their case studies the corruption is caused by precisely what we are talking about here – private interests buying influence in government. This is mitigated by state funding.
For more see Biezen and Kopecky in ‘Party Politics’ VOL 13. No.2.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:36 am
“you deny that National should have a relationship with business”
I must have missed where I said that, could you cite a reference please?
Thought not.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:38 am
David, I did not ‘accuse’ you of being a hypocrite, I stated you are inconsistent, and I stand by it.
Leaving aside your ludicrous scatter approach to s59, today you state “any nonsense about buying elections is just that – nonsense”. Yet you also stated (16-10-06) that: “it is near impossible to dismiss the possibility, that the $796,312 of excess advertising materially affected the election”
So which is it- is it possible to buy an election, or is that just nonsense?
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/10/how_much_did_labour_really_ove.html
Implicit in this post is your affirmative response to the hypothetical question “Was it a stolen election?”.
Care to explain how this is consistent?
April 13th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Sonic said:
“Just making the point that every voter knows about Labour’s relationship with the trade unions, and can take that into account when they choose who they will support. ”
Are you sure that every voter knows of the relationship. But more importantly does every voter know the nature and extent of that relationship. I would suggest that there are many union members who do not know of the extent and nature of the relationship let alone every voter.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
“does every voter know the nature and extent of that relationship”
The point is that if anyone wishes to raise that as an election issue they can, no-one can question the bona fides of an anonymous donor when they do not know who or what they represent.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Vanzijlnz “Still cannot see any reference that advertising won it (regarding the brash claim)”
What? read it again, particularly: “accusing her of having “stolen” the election through Labour’s taxpayer-funded $446,000 pledge card”
Ah, it pretty obvious that he is referring to a campaigning/advertising expense. Remember your statement “Not spending on advertising but more spending tax money as incentives I think you’ll find. A La student funding free child care and WFF”. Vanzijlnz, you were, ah, wrong.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
DPF writes “That latter point is covered by abolishing anon donations over a certain limit – something that has bipartisan support.”
Yes, but this only has bipartisan support insofar as merely trusts and not their anonymous contributors are exposed. The status quo, in other words. I imagine you might be in favour of full disclosure, even when it comes to donations made to trusts, but as far as I know, neither Labour nor National are suggesting this. the issue here is how much such trusts and their anonymous donors should be allowed to donate.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
To put it another way David.
If it is ‘near impossible to dismiss the possibility’ that a sum of money could swing an entire 2% of voters, then how can it be ‘nonsense’ to suggest that an election result could be bought?
April 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Charlie
” … A recent peer-reviewed study shows that those nations on the corrupt end of the index are also those nations that do not have a system of state funding for parties. Certainly there are exceptions and New Zealand has been one of them, … ”
So if it ain’t broke, wtf are they trying to fix?
Ooooops did I say “fix”? silly me.
BTW has the cold front hit yet Charlie?
April 13th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
“So if it ain’t broke, wtf are they trying to fix?”
The problem is that it is broke, or at least breaking. Things change. The 2005 election opened a whole can of worms, including the wrongful use of the leaders fund for “campaigning”, which had been common practice by both parties prior to the last election and the use of anonymous contributions to trusts. Better to plaster over cracks before they become holes.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
From McCulley’s newsletter..
“Through an outfit called the Employment Relations Educational Contestable Fund (ERECF), around $2 million a year is dished out to a range of groups, mostly unions. That’s around $6 million each Parliamentary term. And while outfits like Business New Zealand and some employer groups get funding for particular programmes, none of them play any role in election campaigns or give money to political parties. Trade unions, who are given the bulk of the funding, do play a part in election campaigns – as donors directly to the Labour Party (which many are officially affiliated to) through direct campaign activity, and in individual electorates.
So, for example, in the last year, the Engineers Union (EPMU) received $99,000, the Combined Trades Union (CTU) $457,000, the National Distribution Union $130,000, and the Service and Food Workers Union $85,000 from the public purse. These same unions happen to line up at election time to render very valuable support for the Labour Party. In fact, it is distinctly possible that the EPMU that is listed as giving $40,000 to the Labour Party last election, may not be entirely unrelated to the EPMU that received $99,000 of ERE funding from the Government. And ditto, the Distribution Union ($24,000 to the Labour Party and received $130,000 from the public purse), and the Service and Food Workers’ Union ($20,000 to Labour and received $85,000 from the state). Get the picture?”
Institutionalised corruption in this country (under socialist rule) is endemic.. and the mainstream media, Labours lapdogs, say nothing..
April 13th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Hmmm, the major Unions you list seem to have been attributed considerably less than half the total allocation.
And, you fail to point to where the remainder was attributed.
And, the fund is available to EMPLOYERS and EMPLOYER ORGANISATIONS, who can and do contribute to election campaigns.
And, the grants are ‘contestable’ (how did your challenge to the Union’s allocation to the committee?- nope, didn’t think so).
And, you scream ‘corruption’ in spite of your obvius ignorance.
And, you use this as ‘evidence’ of MSM being Labour lap-dogs.
What a ill informed puppet this freak is.
April 13th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
How does Murray know all of this?
Why, it’s declared of course!
April 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
James C “What a ill informed puppet this freak is.”
Who pulls your strings ?
April 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Interesting to note also that the funding is earmarked.
http://www.ers.dol.govt.nz/ere/fund_applicant_guidelines.html
April 13th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
DPF
Are the totals here the official totals or do they include money stolen which has been hidden by retrospective validation ?
This is an important point, if the totals do not have the stolen money included we cannot conclude anything about the spend VS the result.
Now I appreciate that the whole point of retrospective validation was to hide these details so they would never see the light of day and the guilty parties would not be held accountable… but all the same, if we are comparing $$$/vote then we need the full story.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Charlie – the opening up of trust donations has bipartisan support also, depedning on details.
James – I chose my words carefully. I said “materially affected” and “possibility”. And that is the case. That is in no way inconsistent with this post that money has limited influence. I did not say the money definitely made a material difference, just that it was near impossible to conclude that it did not when it was that close, and the spending gap was so large.
I actually said that one could not conclude it was a stolen election.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
“Now I appreciate that the whole point of retrospective validation was to hide these details”
Yes I’ve never heard anything about the pledge card affair, has anyone else?
April 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
sonic
So how much did Labour overspend by in 2002 or 1999 ? How much did National overspend by in the same elections ?
We don’t know do we…. and we will never know will we…
You are such a puppet for the party ! (or are you a poodle ?)
April 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
DPF said “the opening up of trust donations has bipartisan support also, depedning on details.”
That’s interesting. Could you either elucidate on those details or point me in the direction of some information that does?
April 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
David said ” This time they spent around 30% or $950,000 more than National yet got only 2% more.”
& most of that money was stolen.
Regardless of the significant you place on campaign money, is it possible that 880,000 dollars could get you 2% of the vote??? Damn right it is… & that is why the ’05 election is illegitimate. The only way to find out for sure was to call another election.. but unfortuately that never happened.
I’m not just talking about the pledge card here, because if they paid for the card our of their own funds… then they wouldn’t have been able to afford the extra advertising they had. And I distinctly remember seeing heaps off Labour advertising in the last few weeks of the election.
Labour stole the election..
April 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
The fact that Mr. Farrar has only presented the spending on election campaigning for the three months prior to the 2005 election makes his figures hopelessly skewed and his argument (such as it is) laughable. Anyone can make anything suit their purposes if they pick a partisan starting point for their comparison.
Everyone knows National had shitloads of cash from Brash’s big business mates and ran virtually a permanent election campaign in the 18 months up to the 2005 election.
The only figure that would be worth seeing is the total amount spent between closing of the polls in 2002 and the opening of the polls in 2005 by the National & Labour parties on campaign related expenses…
April 13th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Some really interesting stats there. It’s often surprising to see the hard numbers on $/vote, and what a huge variation there is.
But I don’t think it crushes the idea that ‘$ buys votes’ just to show that more $ are needed by some parties at some times than others. It just shows that the relationship between $ and votes is not simple. What would have happened if more $ had been spent? Can we tell from these stats? At $3.40/vote maybe the Nats could have won the election with another $million. Then again, maybe they could have spent half as much and all that would have moved is the $/vote would go down.
Since it’s a ‘what if’, no stats will be conclusive. What is conclusive to me is that every party wants as much money as they can get their hands on for electioneering. That says to me that they, at least, believe there is a correlation, even if they can’t quantify it. They spend a lot more energy on advertising themselves than they do on actually making policy, and clearly communicating what policy is seems to be something they try to avoid. That many people oppose the amendment because they think it means Labour is buying votes (on the public purse being a side issue) indicates they believe it too.
It’s damned obvious that advertising works, it’s just not obvious how much.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
To be fair to DPF, Tom, that is the information made available by Elections NZ because that is the legal term as it applies to donations. Where do you expect him to get data about the previous years’ spending for all parties?
April 13th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Therefore, your use of “any nonsense about buying elections is just that – nonsense” was in fact itself nonsense, because you maintain that materially affecting an election outcome by campaign spending (buying) is a possibility that is ‘nearly impossible’ to rule out.
1. “any nonsense about buying elections is just that – nonsense”
2. Buying an election result is a possibility that is ‘nearly impossible’ to rule out.
I don’t care which one of the two you withdraw, but they can’t co-exist, hence your inconsistency.
It must be a pain to so blindly follow a party line that changes to suit new environments.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Valid point Ben,
Everyone knows the old saw that half of all advertising expenditure is wasted. Trouble is no-one knows which half to cut.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
We have this wonderful thingy called the internet. I would accept public funding for an appropriate campaign to make voters aware of the websites of each poltical party where they could post their manifesto and bios of their candidates and nothing else.
This would create the level playing field and allow voters to examine the policies of each party.
What more could the politicans want It aint a beauty pageant.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
james
He’s having a “Jordan moment” !
April 13th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Surely even our left leaning friends can see that the proposed law changes around electoral funding are being handled poorly, by an underperforming government in a desperate attempt, not to level the playing field, but to slope it severely in their favour.
Labour supporters are destroying any credibility they may have by pretending that this all done in the cause of fairness and morality. Get real, this is politics, politics is about winning. Labour have taken their shot,landed a big right hook and will now wait to see if their opponent gets up and fights back, or gives up.
It seems the only arguement I have read on here, is that “my side isn’t as crooked as your side”. Now that’s politics. Ain’t it fun.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Burt – they do not include the spending identified by the AG as being electioneering, except where it was included in the party’s return. That would add $400,000 more onto Labour, and significant amounts to Greens, United Future and NZ First also.
Charlie – as far as I know National has said it will cooperate with increased disclosure laws, and has not attacked that part of the proposals. The devil may be in the details though as to how it is worded.
TomS – you really are stupid. These are the *only* figures available. I have not even added on the illegal taxpayer spending to them. They are the Electoral Commission figures as defined by law. Moron.
James – I am comfortable with both statements in the context they were made. You have totally twisted the second statement to something I did not say The election results show that in NZ no elections have been brought with money – I did not rule out that money has influence – your constant quoting of a statement outside the wider post is ridiculous and fools no-one. The 2005 situation is also different. It is not about one party legally spending more than another. It is about one party breaking the law. You plan a campaign for a certain amount of money. If you knew you could spend an extra $800,000 and get away with it, you can.
Incidentially James let me turn the question back on you– which do you believe – that Labour did steal the last election or that money doesn’t buy elections?
April 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
You should have a tip jar DPF, this is the kind of analysis that you don’t find on TV nor in our newspapers, but only on blogs. No wonder the drive-by media is facing extinction.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Level the playing field transparently – no donations except by individuals up to say $10,000 in the election period any more and they must be named. All election spending to be declared – no limit but heavy penalties for misdeclaration.
Anonymous donations cannot have any effect!
April 13th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Peter S:
You seem to be saying that democracy shouldn’t be the election of a government by equally enfranchised adults – if you’re rich you ought to have greater influence on the government that’s chosen because you’ve got more at stake.
Ok. First, that’s repugnant to the concept of democracy, plain and simple. Secondly, even if it were valid to say those with more at stake in the result of an election should have a greater influence over that result then, surely, a poor person should have greater influence than a rich one – its the poor person who is the most likely to be drastically affected, thrust into poverty, by a negative policy change that lessesn their income or wealth, they have no resources to soften the blow, they are vulnerable, whereas the rich person can sustain very large losses of wealth before they really start to hurt. The wealthy are cushioned, the poor are not – by your logic the poor have most to lose so should have mroe infleucne over elections. But like I say, the whole concept is repugnant to the idea that all are essentially equal in a democracy.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Rumpole – including unions? I’m good with that. Of course, the result is that most of those entities that currently donate to a party will instead run third party campaigns in favour or against parties. People’s desire to get heard will always trump the ingenuity of the law makers in preventing them from getting heard.
Then we can create increasing complex laws to try to regulate third party campaigning, and eventually end up with our political financing a complete mess like the US. But of course, on this example the left see the US as the shining light
April 13th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
If $ don’t buy votes, how come all the righties are so concerned about an equal playing feild for parties in terms of $ they have to spend?
April 13th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Sam Dixon
If $$$ don’t buy votes why did labour steal $800,000 and win the election. Any clues when they might pay it back ?
April 13th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
You cannot have it both ways David.
You cannot complain that there was ‘not rule-outable possibility’ that Labour bought (sorry, you use ‘materially affect’ with money) the last election outcome. Then complain that National should be able to spend as they will as the spending makes little difference if any, and that any suggestion that one can buy an election is nonsense.
It is mere Sophistry for you to attempt to claim that these can co-exist on the back of a spurious definition of ‘bought’.
And me, firstly, yes, money spent can make a significant difference in election outcomes. Did it in the last election? I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone can ever know. What is your point aside from attempting to deflect attention from your blantant and patheticly inconsistent party line towing?
April 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
James – you should read what I have actually said
“while there is a case for overall spending limits”
I am not arguing for no limits. You need to stop arguing against what you think I said, and what I actually have said.
In fact I have even suggested actual limits in one of the earlier comments.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Great to see so many red and blue scuds flying around here , can please someone tell the Bat Cave has liarbite party paid back the $ 800,000 they stole from the public purse ?
April 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Think of all the hip replacements 33M would have bought over the past 10 years. Noone has yet explained why the need to spend these sums of money. For Gods sake it aint the 19th or even the 20th century. Modern communication systems means such extravagance is unnecessary.If the bastards cant get their message across as I suggested above then they are even more unless than tits on a bull.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Sam Dixon,
The principle of democracy is that each person has an equal vote.
There is nothing to suggest that all should have an equal voice. Otherwise it would be almost impossible to elect anyone. Not everyone is blessed witht the same speaking skills. Not everyone has the same powers of persuasion.
Each person has particular skills and abilities in differing measures, and the success they attain often depends upon that, and influence is a natural result of success.
The problem with your concept of trying to make everyone equal is that, as H.C. commented about trying to ban smacking, it goes against human nature.
You seem to be enamoured with the concept of pulling everyone down to the lowest common denominator. I prefer the concept of success in one giving motivation to succeed in another.
Without a vision the people perish.
Without successful people most are left with nothing to aspire to.
Having worked up from having nothing & being on a benefit to a reasonable level of success & comfort I’ve had a guts full of the mealy mouthed socialism that relies on having a huge underclass of poor to feed with envy in return for votes.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Attention all liarbite neuron transmitters do link and feel to answer the question ?
Yeah right !!
April 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Nonsense David. Irrelevant.
How can the possibility of ‘buying an election’ be a ‘nonsense’ when National are defending election spending rights;
YET, be a “near impossible to dismiss … possibility” (of excess advertising ‘materially affecting’ the last election) when National (with you in tow) were complaining about the outcome of the last election???
Now please, how does “excess advertising ‘materially affecting’ the election outcome” differ from buying an election in your world??
April 13th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I think it would be fair to say that massive advertising may move an election result 2-3% – however you could not ‘buy’ an election from a very low level of support.
So Labour over spending in the last couple of weeks before the 2005 election would have had a material affect on the result.
But ACT could have spent $5M and still not become government.
The real problem is not with the advertising – but with one party (Labour) stealing taxpayer money and breaking the spending cap when National followed the rules. Had National been able to spend up large the advantage that Labour took illegally would have been voided.
So let’s take the limits off completely, make people who advertise say who they are (and actually prosecute then if they don’t) and trust NZers to vote.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Hey Burt! what a delightfully illogical post! I’m saying $ do buy votes, its the others who are saying otherwise. Thanks for playing though!
PS. Labour’s nothing to do with me, but they’ve sad they’re paying the moeny back by the end of the financial year, in fact they’ve said it a bunch of times…(just btw guys, it was found Labour misspent money that was already allocated to them, they didn’t ‘steal’ money, they didn’t take more than they were allowed).
April 13th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
So James, the argument is
either
Yes- spending does affect election results, in which case the $800,000.00 Labour stole must have been the deciding factor in the last election (won by about 16,000 votes).
In which case Labour is trying to restrict National’s finances in an attempt to affect the result of the next election.
Or-
No spending does not affect election results.
And that would mean that Labour stole $800,000.00 for what reason, and are trying to change the existing election legislation for what reason?
So if the answer is yes, then Labour’s claim to power is far from legitimate, as is their basis for attempting to change the legislation.
If the answer is no- then why are we even having this discussion? There is no need to change the current law.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Peter S: I’m not saying pull people down I’m saying don’t let one guy have more impact on who our government is than the next guy just because he happens to have more money. – You’re saying that if you lost all your moeny tomorrow and I kept mine, I should have the right to have greater influence, by my political donations, on elections than you. Thats nutty, just because I’ve got more money than you does not make me a better person or a more worthy contributor to the choice of Government
- Forget the loony notion that the left wants the poor poor, its the bloody left that has done so much over the years and decades and centuries to improve the wealth and welfare of the poor (wages, leave, social services, on and on) – the left is the voice of the poor my friend, not their oppressor, that’s why the poor choose to join the unions, that’s why they vote for the left. When the left has its way there are fewer truely poor people.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Actually Sam, I think you could mount a very reasonable argument that it is in the interests of the Left leadership to keep poor people poor and if not poor, then at least dependent on the government for their lifestyle.
Afterall, if they get more money they will start voting for people who will allow them to keep more of it, run the ecomony better so they can grow their wealth, and allow them to make more decisions about thier lives.
If I was leader of Labour I would devise a way to make even more people dependant on the state, and make harder for them to get wealtheir by having really high marginal tax rates. This means they will be both discouraged from trying to better themselves and afraid of a change of government in case they get taken off the public teat.
Oh wait, they’ve already done that.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Sam,
Sorry. Claptrap.
If I lose my money & influence- tough.
If a candidate loses their voice & is unable to convince voters- tough.
The left had some positive influence in the past- but that has been wiped by the negative of the more recent and the current.
Your arguments are stuck in the 19th centuary.
Since Labour came to power in 2000 the gap between rich and poor has widened (stats NZ had data on that). That is Labour’s reason for existence, and after 8 years the situation is worse than when National was in power.
Wealth is not created by taxing earners and giving to non productive parts of society. All that happens is that it traps the poor in the position of relying on handouts. If it worked, then we would not have the level of welfare burden that we do now. Labour needs the poor much much more than the poor need Labour.
The caring society based on welfare is a myth. State operated welfare robs people of the pleasure & benefit that a person gets from giving. It also robs the recipient of the ability to be grateful, because it becomes a right instead a privelidge.
I’ve seen too many socialists that are happy to salve their bleeding hearts & troublesome consciences- but it is almost exclusively with other people’s money and seldom their own.
The old socialist picture of the working class supporting a pyramid of oppressors is still valid, but today it is middle class workers like myself that bear the burden of huge numbers of welfare recipient and socialist academics that siphon off the lions share of any income that remains after food and accomodation. In fact, the govornment is so keen to help these people that their portion is removed before the poor worker gets to see any of it.
April 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Peter S, at least try and have your premise reflect the actual position, that attempt was awful.
“spending does affect election results … must have been the deciding factor” Substitute ‘does’ for ‘can’, and ‘must’ for ‘may’. Then your statement goes from false to true leaving your conclusion incorrect, sorry.
Also, I have made no claim as to the last election result, I have only pointed out that the National party and its parrots have been changing position with the environment with ridiculous regularity, and it is funny watching the lame attempts at justification for the new position in the light of the (now inconvenient) former position.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
James,
No. The position was fine. I did miss the 3rd option though-
spending MAY affect the election result.
If that is the case then, in such a tight election the “stolen money may have affected the election result” is better stated as “the stolen money probably affected the election result”
If that is the case, then Labour’s legitimacy for governing is open to challenge, as are the reasons for the proposed changes.
My arguement in the first case was actually based on reality. Either spending does affect votes, or it does not. The fact that it has not been proved either way does not change the reality.
If it does affect the result, and the result was so close that the % difference was minimal, then the contention that a large input of illegal cash by Labour had a direct effect on the overall result is not unreasonable.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
So sorry for being a troll on this thread. Actually I voted for Labour at the last election???
April 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Peter S, in which case whose position was represented by option 1? Also, ‘may’ and ‘probably’ are not the same thing. A thing can be a possibility (may), yet not a probability.
Try again perhaps?
April 13th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The problem with this kind of analysis is that it doesn’t tell you what the money was spent on. It also implies linearity and ignores diminishing returns.
A party can poll quite highly without necessarily spending much money, although to do really well, you need to spend a lot of money.
The McGillicuddy Serious Party is a good example of this and used to do surprisingly well given their lack of money. In 1993 they got 10,000+ votes. Although to most people that might look like small fry, you have to keep in mind that their policies were largely … insane and there were only 5 parties that polled higher (and no, I won’t mention anything about the leader of the party that polled above them).
National 673,892
Labour 666,800
Alliance 350,063
New Zealand First 161,481
Christian Heritage 38,745
McGillicuddy Serious 11,714
Natural Law Party 6,056
Mana Māori 3,342
Alternative Party 822
New Zealand Defence 650
NZ Representative 641
Unemployed Workers 514
Hard to Find Bookshop party 171
Gisborne First 145
Binding Referendum party 132
Whangarei Whanau 94
Communist League 84
Blokes Liberation Front 57
Aotearoa Partnership Party 52
Etherial Vision 40
Private Enterprise Party 35
Pacific Party 25
Dominion Workers 12
Economic Euthenics 10
Independents 7,177
They managed this with lots of stunts and pounding the pavement.
In 1996 (the first MMP election) this changes to 12,178 constituency votes and 5,989 party votes.
Compare that to the Libertarianz with 553 constituency votes and 671 party votes.
Makes you think.
Oh yeah:
Labour 666,800 votes in 1993.
Clear evidence that they are in league with the dark lord.
April 13th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
So what is wrong with legislating the Exclusive Brethren out of existence???
April 13th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“Also, ‘may’ and ‘probably’ are not the same thing.”
Read the post.
As the difference becomes smaller, then the probability changes.
Had the election been won on the difference of one vote, then the assertion would be a virtual certainty.
I did not assert that may and probably were the same.
The point was, that if there was a statistical chance that spending more could influence the election, then, given the large amount stolen compared to the small % winning margin, then the balance of probability is that the spending did affect the end result.
The whole point is, whether or not the argument is that the votes are related to spending or not, the fact is that Labour stole $800,000.00 of public money to fight the election on the assumption that it would make a difference. This makes their actions in trying to change the election laws to suit themselves (based on the same assumption) completely unethical.
Cheating is cheating regardless of whether it results in a win.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
4:19 “So sorry for being a troll on this thread. Actually I voted for Labour at the last election???”
They are at it again David F .I did not say or send that .
April 13th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
To the other dad4justice I will find you one day and say gidday twisted person – hows life ?
April 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I can’t believe I said that… lol
April 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I will award a Fabergé egg to the person who can establish that money can by elections?
No one has yet show how an anonymous donation can buy influence?
And speaking of corruption, there is nothing more corrupting than making political parties welfare recipients. Labour is giving into a culture of dependency and envy – the worst possible rationales for electoral reform.
Further the Justice and Electoral Select Committee contains no representatives from the NZ First, Maori Party, United Future, ACT or The Progressives. In the absence of an Independent Commission recommending electoral reform will Labour move to constitute an ad hoc Select Committee proportionally representative of the full Parliament (as close as possible) to deal with this Bill. If not, then Nandor Tanczos representing the Greens holds the swing vote on the existing Select Committee.
That is why Labour is so carefully negotiating the votes for this Bill they need the Greens on board to sign up to a Bill that will make through the Select Committee to the House in a form that already can gain the support of NZ First, Maori Party, United Future, or most unlikely ACT. This tells us also that the Select Committee is likely to be a mockery. NZ1 or UF won’t necessarily vote for a Bill in the likeness and image of Nandor.
The Maori Party has a slightly different problem. As a base proposition electoral law changes intended to favour Labour (with the Greens going along to show good matesmanship) are unlikely to be in the Maori Party’s interests – for all the Maori Party are doing should they support these, is strengthening the competition from Labour who are actually the natural competitors to the Maori Party in the Maori Seats.
All regulatory regimes result in adverse consequences. Labours proposals will also. It incentives so called “third parties” to become registered political parties. As Mr Farrar has established there is no necessary correlation between money spent and votes received i.e. one could spend 1 million dollars and gainer few votes for ones own party. Likewise on the leaked material thus far – one could drive a bus through the proposed donation regime to spend that million. My advice to the persona non gratis Exclusive Brethren would be to register. Man could they damage Labour then. The group the Labour Party changed the law to silence who would not be silenced.
April 13th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
How come Bill English and Gerry Brownlee run the defence of anonymous donations from the well to do and not John Key. A handler’s decision? An assessment that supporting such a line is Don Brash era’ish and would be un David Cameron (especially for a man who made his money on foreign money markets).
April 13th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
innocent 111 is quite right to note that those with both money and the will to assert their “influence” in the political process will find loopholes in any legislation.
Transparency (identifying those funding campaigns) is therefore the best defence componenet within whatever legislation is proposed.
PS EB say they do not partake of politics and thus would be unable to justify registering themselves enmass as a political party – they would be more likely to sponsor others starting one up (the whole congregation signing off on cheques given them by the businessman leaders – but even here this would still be easily identifiable and this transparent). Thus they would out their whole community as sponsoring a political party while claiming to be apolitical.
April 13th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
5,46 pm Fuckwit dad4justice – said “I can’t believe I said that… lol”
Goodbye the real d4j is leaving this blog and I will not be responsible for any futher comments as dad4justice .
You dirty low life bastards !!!
April 13th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
SPC:
“EB say they do not partake of politics and thus would be unable to justify registering themselves enmass as a political party”
Ah no all they need is 500 members. They most definitely should register as the Exclusive Brethren Free Speech Party (to ensure no one votes for them) just to piss Labour off – all this law changing and they still can spend a million. Thats what one gets for the demonisation of any minority group – it bits back and these guys should bit back.
As for the donation stuff as I said on the information already leaked one could drive a double decker bus through it. But I propose to await Labour’s drafting and the passage of the law for a bit of Electoral law bus drivin.
Damn even though the EB are wrong in many of their views I might just help them out. Bullying Government needs be punished.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“So what is wrong with legislating the Exclusive Brethren out of existence???”
noddy, the EB were first mentioned in this thread at at 8:39am. EB First mention, but good to see you back flying the flag on the election spending threads.
April 14th, 2007 at 1:09 am
innocent 111
Yes all any party needs is 500 members – BUT EB claims to be apolitical, that’s their problem in forming a party. They seem to espouse neither voting or being political themselves, just funding parties or promoting and opposing them with their donations. While they may well find 500 EB church members to sign off cheques at the maximium allowable (financed by the wealthiest few of them) for donations – they need 500 non EB people to form any party front.
Actually EB acted first and to attempt to subvert the intent of the old law. Choosing to run a negative anti-Labour and anti-Green campaign after being advised their intent to openly support National would come under National’s cap … . This is not altogether out of keeping with their our group and business affairs come before any respect for the wider society attitude.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Sorry for the alarm darlings. Ignore my 7.47 resolution… it didn’t last long. Good ‘ol Dad4justice is back up on kiwiblog again today… lol