19 problems still remaining with the Electoral Finance Bill

November 19th, 2007 at 4:50 pm by David Farrar

There are probably more than this, but here’s an initial list of 19 problems with the revised Electoral Finance Bill:

  1. It now includes speaking into a megaphone as a regulated election year activity. [Page 8 of Select Committee Report]

  2. The definition of publishing an election advertisement is extended to include the catchall “bring to the notice of the public in any other manner” which will include speaking in public. [Clause 4(1) – para (i) of definition to publish]

  3. Anonymous political advocacy on much of the Internet is outlawed as uploading a political video to You Tube even a post into the nz.politics Usenet newsgroup advocating for or against a party will require a name and residential address. [Clause 53(1) – para (a) and para (g) of Clause 4(1) definition of publish]
  4. The regulated period of all of election year remains one of the world’s longest at 30% of an electoral cycle (in Canada it is 6 – 8 weeks only for third parties) [Clause 4(1) – definition of regulated period]

  5. Third parties are restricted from advocating in all of election year to vote for or against parties on particular issues such as the environment or taxes. For example Greenpeace could not spend more than $10,000 a month advocating a vote against parties who do not support Kyoto.[Clause 5(1) para a(ii)]
  6. Blogs are left in an unsure legal position as only non-commercial blogs are exempted. All commercial blogs and other websites are now regulated if they express an opinion for or against a party or candidate. [Clause 5(2) para (g)]
  7. Other online forms of advocacy such as e-mail are now regulated. [para (g) of Clause 4(1) definition of publish]

  8. No right of reply for people attacked in an election campaign. You can spend only $12,000 nationally defending yourself if you or your organization is attacked during a campaign as third party registrations close on writ day. [Clause 17 para (a)(i)]
  9. By closing third party registrations after before candidate nominations close, a local residents group would be restricted to spending $1,000 opposing a last minute candidate whose views they find repugnant. [Clause 17 para (a)(i)]

  10. Different rules for third parties and political parties remain – political parties have twice the disclosure limit of third parties. [Clause 47(1) para (ab)]

  11. Spending limits not adjusted for population growth and/or inflation so an effective decrease in real per capita spending of 31%, plus that now has to last all year not just last 90 days [Clause 4(1) – definition of regulated period]

  12. Instead of banning anonymous donations, a compromise deal has seen them remain legal up to a certain limit, obviously designed to favour the incumbent Government. [Clause 28C(1)]

  13. All forms of political advocacy which promote votes for or against a party (or candidate) have to have a name and residential address supplied – even for placards, e-mails, speaking at street corners, posters, chalk on pavement. [Clause 53(1) para (a)]

  14. Parliamentary expenditure which was clearly electioneering under the existing (such as pledge cards) is now exempt from the spending caps [Clause 80 – para (d)]

  15. New candidates face a near impossible job against incumbent MPs as they are limited to just $20,000 over 11 months, and MPs parliamentary spending is exempt. [Clause 4(1) – definition of regulated period]

  16. Political parties are banned from running ads which advocate against candidates on particular issues (such as vote against MPs who voted for the Electoral Finance Bill) [Clause 53(2) para (a)]

  17. Political parties remain immune from prosecution for breaches of the Electoral Act – only individuals such as financial agents can be fined. This provides an incentive for parties to place pressure on individuals to risk breaking the law as the party itself will face no penalty.
  18. Smaller parties remain disadvantaged with broadcasting rules, as they are banned from purchasing their own broadcasting.

  19. The public have no meaningful opportunity for input into the revised bill, with its masses of changes
Tags:

83 Responses to “19 problems still remaining with the Electoral Finance Bill”

  1. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    So in other words, even what you say in a public setting has been regulated?

    Bloody hell!

    Can I sign up for one of Tame Iti’s camps please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    1. No it doesn’t. Guess you never passed Laws 101, Daivd, if tha’ts the quality of your statutory interpretation.

    Simple choice really people: you can read Graeme Edglerer’s explanation over at the Standard or continue to believe whatever the NAtional party’s paid blogger says (as credible as that is given he’s as poor a lawyer as he is a statistican).

    [DPF: Sam - this is your final warning to stop misrepresenting what Graeme has said. He has not contradicted the name and address disclosure stuff. If you want to insist he has - then post extracts - do not smear and lie repeatedly]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Inventory2 (10,162 comments) says:

    Commercial blogs – does this refer to both the blog and the host site, the blog itself, or the host site?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    2. That will only apply to registered third parties. Those spending over $12,000… not just any joker on the street.

    [DPF: Sam stop lying about this unless you can cite clauses which back up your view]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    4. Why is that a bad thing? Obivously, having periods of spending caps come into force too close too elecitons promtoes gaming of the system (we jsut saw on the weekend how the parties in Australia game their system by delaying their offical campaign luanches as long as possible becuase their spending it only capped after the luanches).

    Other countries do have longer periods of restrictions, the UK for example. There are, in fact, limits on electioneering all term-long in Canada, there’s a period of stronger restrictions closer to the election.

    [DPF: In Canada third party restrictions are for the last six or so weeks only]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    They could’nt resist introducing the loud speaker clause.

    there’s ways and means around everything.

    Have all protests beside a river or lake.

    Put major speakers in a boat and push them onto the waterway.

    Their voices will boom over the water, it is a huge conductor foe voice and radio waves.

    then watch the govt introduce an anti water way demonstration bill

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    Sam,

    The UK may have a 12 month restricted period, but the spending cap is 250,000 pounds, or about $650,000 NZD.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    BTW,,

    Do we need to repeat history with another boat in international waters promoting freedom of speech on a political radio show??

    Mark Bennett would be first on board I’m guessing.

    Radio Pacific replacing Radio Hauraki.

    de-evolution

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    “New candidates face a near impossible job against incumbent MPs as they are limited to just $20,000 over 11 months”

    Tell that to Bob Clarkson, he won AND spent ‘just under the limit.’

    It can be done, even against a very very high profile sitting member.

    Your nonsense has allready been disproved

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    10. that’s because poltiical parties are competing for public office, they need the resources to fully put forward their policy prgrammes and respond to their opponents.

    Third parties should not be used to run parallel cmapaigns with parties, effectively leeting parties circumvent the spending restrictions.

    Rather, they should be campiagning on specific issues – the parties need a higher limit becuase they are undertaking a more complex campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dc (173 comments) says:

    Also the UK has a five-year election cycle. One year of restricted speech every three years is silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dad4justice (7,905 comments) says:

    Point number 20 . It is time that everybody that cares about the state of our lost the plot government agree NOT to vote come election time . Why bother with the crap . Its makes me piss razor blades thinking of Clark and her corrupt cronies !!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. john (478 comments) says:

    Mondays worry, who scares me the most??
    A, helen clark and peter davis and their labour party of misfits.
    B, the EB ,strange religion , but seem to be normal , ,ie work hard , marry , have no strange sexual habits and have NO affect on me,
    No brainer , the EB dont threaten my freedom but the witches party does,(HARD LABOUR)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    dpf..

    you left out the really big one..

    that groaning war-chest over at natty-central..!

    eh..?

    what to do now..?..eh..?

    (are you all having a ‘fuck..!’..moment..?..)

    about all those billboards/’planned’ campaigns..etc.. etc..?

    and on behalf of those on the green/left..

    can i thank you..dpf..for your efforts to help us remove the most draconian (for us) aspects of this bill..

    whllst retaining (one of) the things we want/ed..

    (c.f..’natty groaning war chest’..)

    cheers..!

    and i think it would have been very hard to deny the effect of the trans-ideological pack of wolves baying at the select committee room doors..

    so..a ‘well done!’..to all who contributed..

    (but seriously..!..dpf..!..w.t.f. now..?..eh..?..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    12. National ACT and the centrist parties have favoured maintaining anonymous donations – indeed most donations National recieves come from unnamed sources.

    Labour wanted anonymous doantions banned but wanted public funding becuase it thought parties’ revenue would be undercut so much as to make proper cmapaigning impossible.

    The Greens, true to principle, insisted that anonymous donations shouls go. A compromise was reached, as is appropriate in a country where we no longer have a party winning 35% and ruling alone. That compromise limits the amount of anonymous doantions that may be given and requires fuller disclosure.

    If National really wants rid of anonymous doantions all together, it can put forward an amendment when the Bill returns to the House… I’m betting it won’t. Any takers?

    [DPF: I hope National do. I certainly am advocating they do just that.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    15. The largest payment of that exempt parliamentary spending goes to the National party.

    That parliamentary spending will nto be able to explicitly ask voters for support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    better get some ‘up for xmas’..eh..?

    y’know..!..bilboards..!..etc..etc..

    phil(whoar.co.nz0

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. dad4justice (7,905 comments) says:

    philu

    Hell that must be good top shelf gear , did Sue give it to you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    13. Wrong, see above (1 and 2)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    19. The changes arose from a public consultation process, the select committe hearings, in which you yourself took part. The Bill will be subject to the scrutnity of our elected representatives through two more Parliamentary votes before it can become law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dave (985 comments) says:

    DPF, I don’t think you have it entirely correct. I have done a post over here which should explain further. My interpretation is that people shouting into megaphones – or doing anything else – are not regulated unless they spend over the spending limit – unless you think shounting a name and address over a microphone is “regulation”. It is certainly unenforceable.

    Also, you state that “publish” includes email. It includes everything that is not specifically excluded – “bring to the public in any other way”. You dont “publish” something privately.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    18. that is the current law.. broadcasting funding is provided out of public funding to every registered party based on a formula acknowledging their level of support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The EB are starting to look saintly these days.

    Their motivations were always unexplained and mysterious but their tactics were 100 fold less devious than Labour.

    Perhaps we are sposed to respect Helen foy her ‘true colours.’

    Tui moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    3. Only for registered third parties, those spending over $12,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    9. Doesn’t seem to make sense – typos?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pita (372 comments) says:

    Am I mistaken or weren’t Roger and Tane telling us not to be so premature after all it was only a draft and that the SC would clean it up?

    Perhaps Sonic has an opinion after all he/she also said there were many things that he/she did not like about the bill in its draft form?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dad4justice (7,905 comments) says:

    666. Sam go to the greens and get some weed and chill out dude , ask philu if you’re short and hanging out mate .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    7. Only when they are electioneering by a political party or registered third party

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “3. Only for registered third parties, those spending over $12,000.”

    Parties spending under the threshold don’t have to be registered, so how are they publicly recognised.

    Don’t you register your party to get published to the voters attn

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. dad4justice (7,905 comments) says:

    69. Sam ask Heather or Kay for assistance

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Sam, do you really thing the changes to the EFB came from public consutation? Do you really accept that now the canges made cannot be subjected to further public consultation?

    Get your head out of your arse.

    I propose a meeting at a pub in Auckland to indulge in some heated debate over the issue, would love to see if some of these lefties like Sam and Tane have the courage of their convictions to back thier points of view in a public setting.

    Any takers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    16.. Um, David, the clause you cite, 53(2)(a), says:
    For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), a promoter is entitled to
    promote an election advertisement if the promoter is—
    (a) the financial agent of a party, but only if the advertise-
    ment is a party advertisement promoted by, or on behalf 10
    of, that party;

    that has nothing to do with your assertion. Sloppy work with the Nat research unit again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    RoWWoR – I don’t live in Auckland, otherwise I would be there.

    And as I’ve read the select committee report, I would say, yes I do think the changes came from public consultation – in fact they are precisely in line with a bulk of changes advocated by submitters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    5. Greenpeace and other groups will still be allowed to continue their normal adovacy, the only limit will be when they specifically endorse or argue agianst the poisiton or a party or candidate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    6. Only commerical blogs are regulated. I guess if you have been planning to take on a whole lot of ‘advertising’ from National party backers as a way of funneling funds to pro-National campaigns, that’s a spanner in your works.

    But as it stands, no political blog in the coutnry will be affected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. kaykaybee (149 comments) says:

    Point #16

    “Political parties are banned from running ads which advocate against candidates on particular issues (such as vote against MPs who voted for the Electoral Finance Bill) [Clause 53(2) para (a)]”

    what is an election all about????????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    11. In legislation, no dollar amounts are adjusted automatically for inflation and population. Such changes are taken care of by annual roundup bills.

    Did you miss that when you were a National party researcher? Even if you’ld forgotten the current research unit should have been able to remind you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    kaykaybee – the clause he’s quoting doesn’t say that at all, he’s relaying on your ignorance http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/B3855C0D-338F-42C8-8E8F-C82715337CA7/69335/DBSCH_SCR_3906_5586.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Inventory2 (10,162 comments) says:

    Sam – are you a lawyer, or has the Labour Party provided you with a list of points of rebuttal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    14. No use of parliamentary funds for advertising explicitly asking for votes is allowed.

    the party with a biggest allocation of this funding is the National party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Brownie () says:

    Leave Sam alone, guys. He’s been caught out (again)and has no logical argument other than fudging the figures and twisting the words to say “nothing to see here, move along” so that you will be convinced to have the very foundations of democracy gradually eroded whilst we rest in the benevolent embrace of the socialist state and you individual freedoms gradually stripped away.

    It’s not his fault – he was probably brought up this way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    INv2 – I have a law degree amongst other qualifications – but this is basically Laws 101 stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Spam (595 comments) says:

    How does this affect radio? In particular, political commentators on radio (eg. DPF or Helen Clark on each monday) or talkback callers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    This really is the end.
    Sam Dixon, you have a shot at very senior employment in a few years, maybe even as MP. There will be nobody left after Clarke wins another term next year except you and the rest of the succubi. The 600-700 kiwis escaping and becoming economic refugees in OZ at present will seem like a trickle compared to the flood that will start in early 2009.
    Australia really have got it good at the moment, massive mineral wealth and a steady stream of willing and competent migrants to fill the growth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    17. This is because some parties are not legal persons (they’re unincorporated). So there would be nothing to sue if you tried to sue such a party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. David Farrar (1,869 comments) says:

    If Sam has a law degree, then that solves it – he is deliberately lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Brownie () says:

    Sam, if you perhaps had Donna Buckingham from Otago as your Stat Analysis lecturer, methinks she would be rolling in disgust.

    I hope the law is not your main source of income cause you are really, really bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Sam Dixon (630 comments) says:

    8. You can always spend money defneding yourself or your organsiation’s reputation – the limit is on spending for electioneering.

    There I think that’s all of those 19 ‘fatal flaws’ destroyed. Good evening.

    [DPF: Apart from the fact you lied repeatedly and are wrong. But I love the towering mastubatory ego where Sam is so lacking in self esteem he feels the need to self proclaim that he has destroyed the post. I mean seriously what sort of w***er really jerks off like that. If would be different if other people came in and said hey Sam I thought that was a great job. But to congratulate yourself on "destroying" the arguments is really sad and pitiful. And even worse he is 100% wrong on the facts relating to name and address.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    did someone fart..?

    oh..!..it’s just ‘dad for joints’..!

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Santa Claws (54 comments) says:

    Guys – we need to step up our game. I think Sam just handed you your arses. Is it possible we could get a 19 point rebuttal of Sam’s points? I’m just not sure they’d hold up under scrutiny but I don’t have a law degree – someone here from the right must have one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kimble (4,397 comments) says:

    Sam, you have made too many mistakes in too many posts to keep track.

    Are you going to retract what you have been saying about what Graeme has said?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kimble (4,397 comments) says:

    Santa Claws, stop cheerleading, piss off back to The Standard you slimy troll blowing cretin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kimble (4,397 comments) says:

    What is this fetish with ‘explicitly asking for votes’?

    If you cant imagine an advertising campaign can be a fish for votes without explicitly asking for them, you lack any imagination at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Kimble (4,397 comments) says:

    “5. Greenpeace and other groups will still be allowed to continue their normal adovacy, the only limit will be when they specifically endorse or argue agianst the poisiton or a party or candidate.”

    Holy fckn shit! How can he write this and still not get it?

    Greenpeace can advocate, they just cant advocate, argue, or endorse a position that is linked to a “type” of candidate or party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    Gidday – how are those kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    That should have been: Gidday Santa – how are those kids?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Santa Claws (54 comments) says:

    Toby – what do you mean by that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. MajorBloodnok (361 comments) says:

    19. The public have no meaningful opportunity for input into the revised bill, with its masses of changes

    Sam wrote: 19. The changes arose from a public consultation process, the select committe hearings, in which you yourself took part. The Bill will be subject to the scrutnity of our elected representatives through two more Parliamentary votes before it can become law.

    The Human Rights Commission, while advocating “Kill the Bill”, accepted a 2nd option… a bill revised in the Select Committee provided that its changes were opened to public submissions again.

    That is not the same as “what the majority in Parliament think is best for you”.

    Or don’t you learn logic in Law School nowadays?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    The kiddies you enjoy bouncing on your knee. How are they?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Grant (427 comments) says:

    Have just started to watch TV3 News…… what a crock! Did anyone else watch the article on the EFB and think that they may have shown just a smidgeon of bias…..?
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    Grant – what did they say about it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Kimble (4,397 comments) says:

    MajorBloodnok, dont bother replying point by point, you will be here all night. I started to but gave up, there is just too much wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Santa Claws (54 comments) says:

    Toby – are you accusing me of something? If so, what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Murray M (455 comments) says:

    Barnsley Bill @ 5.51pm
    I’ll be in Oz in 2008. I was a soldier some years ago. I swore an oath to protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic. I can no longer remain in this country bearing witness to what is happening. NZ has become an international fucking joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    I’m not accusing you of anything. I’m just wondering how the kiddies are.

    I guess you’ll be looking forward to ‘hanging out at the Mall’ shortly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Grant (427 comments) says:

    Toby, while this isn’t a direct quote, the item lead with words to the effect that the National Party wont be able to take advantage of large anonymous donations in 2008 and also won’t be able to benefit from Helen’s scapegoats aka The Exclusive Brethren. I didnt watch much more than that as I was too disgusted.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Santa Claws (54 comments) says:

    I’m assuming by that Toby that you are implying accusations that I am a child molester? Please don’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. kaykaybee (149 comments) says:

    Yes Grant,

    After that excuse for a report, I’m going back to Granny One, shame on TV3

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    Santa – that’s a terrible thing to say. Of course I’m not saying that. That’s simply awful.

    I think that its great that you enjoy helping children discover the joy of Christmas. Those shiny, happy, innocent faces, pressing forward expectantly….Little hands, reaching and touching…..A few little elves, rummaging through your sack……maybe a polaroid of little Sarah with Santa, to go into Nana’s Christmas stocking. Lovely!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Santa Claws (54 comments) says:

    Oh well if that’s all you mean good and well Toby, now would you like to talk about the EFB or are you just threadjacking?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Kimble (4,397 comments) says:

    BAHAHAHHAHAAAA! A Standard Troll is complaining about thread jacking!

    Priceless!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    Truth is generally the best vindication against slander.

    Abraham Lincoln

    And enforced silence is the ONLY defence against lies!

    ME!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. The Double Standard (72 comments) says:

    It really is a waste of effort arguing with Sam. He is strictly here to troll and stir, and would be laughed out of Laws 101 in 5 minutes.

    Every attempted rebuttal he posts is ridiculous and only shows his absolute committal to supporting Labour’s attack on freedom in this country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ben (2,412 comments) says:

    I believe my opening words into a megaphone on 1 January next will be: “My name is Go Fuck Yourself Labour.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    Santa: Is it possible we could get a 19 point rebuttal of Sam’s points?

    If Sam had actually rebutted the points and backed up his assertions. You cannot simply write “This is wrong.” and “No, doesn’t work that way” and count it as a serious rebuttal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Grant (427 comments) says:

    This is a cut and paste from the TV3 website:

    “The days of the National party relying on millions of dollars of money from anonymous donations appear to be over. The controversial electoral finance bill has been reported back from select committee and it severely limits how much parties can fundraise through anonymous donations.”

    Not only is the tone biased in the extreme, and correct me if I’m wrong here, but its also untrue as I understand that anonymous donations will still be allowed under the bill.
    G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. toby1845 (191 comments) says:

    What Kimble said, but double!

    Ha ha ha.

    Talking of Labour trolls, have either Judith Tizard or Maryan Street made any comment about last Saturday’s march in Auckland yet?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. The Double Standard (72 comments) says:

    It will be interesting to see the disclosure of Labour’s funding next year – $800,000 is a lot of cash to collect. I wonder how much was donated anon. It’s a good thing they got that in the door before shutting it – a case of shutting the door before the horse has bolted I guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,080 comments) says:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome on another thread:

    DPF:

    Could you do an update listing the specific page and/or section that you derive each of your assertions from? It would make it quicker to fact-check your claims.

    DPF on this thread (complete with cross-references to the EFB):

    There are probably more than this, but here’s an initial list of 19 problems with the revised Electoral Finance Bill:

    Phillip John/Roger Nome on this thread:

    [nothing to say so far]

    Congratulations, DPF, on burying the garden gnome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Pascal (2,015 comments) says:

    POC: Congratulations, DPF, on burying the garden gnome.

    I’m actually much happier to see Sam “I have a law degree” Dixon slapped down by the person he was misquoting over from the Standard. It’s taken a long time, but finally their economy with the truth is starting to surface in the public arena.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Spam (595 comments) says:

    Issues that I see:

    1.)

    Justice Minister Annette King said the revised period was “transparent and fair” because the previous three-month limit often left parties guessing when it would start if the Prime Minister had not announced an election date.

    Letting the Prime Minister plan when the election is going to be held is problematic, in that it favours the encumbant. Possible fix: Amend the bill to have the period regulated back to 3-months, but the Prime Minister must set the date prior to Jan 1st of the election year.

    2.) The government will crank-up “policy awareness advertising”, as we have seen in 2005, and as we will see again next year. This is not just policy awareness – its brand awareness. The ads say one thing (Kiwisaver, WFF, Health policy etc), and Labour then ‘identifies’ themselves with this. Again, skews the playing field towards the encumbant. Possible Fix: Cap government spending on policy awareness to be no more than the minimum of the previous two years. That way, the spend can’t escalate in election year – it must be static throughout the electoral cycle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Peak Oil Conspiracy (3,080 comments) says:

    Pascal:

    It’s taken a long time, but finally their economy with the truth is starting to surface in the public arena.

    No, no no – reality has a left-wing bias, remember? So either we’re lying, or discussing the EFB simply isn’t in the public interest.

    I agree that Sam’s defence of the EFB was half-hearted. And if you’re reading this, Sam, saying one has a law degree isn’t a bus-ticket to credibility either – unless you write something sensible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Max Call (212 comments) says:

    another possible problem (Problem 20?)
    http://www.publicaddress.net/system/topic,839,hard_news_looking_for_monsters.sm
    look at comments from Tim McKenzie and Graeme Edgeler
    quite funny if true!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.