I am reasonably familiar with the bill at this stage from first hand read and public commentary. I am not an expert.

Who do you think you’re kidding:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/oh_for_all_those_claiming_i_am_wrong.html#comment-369410

It is highly defamatory and most of all completely wrong. Have you read the bill Kent?

I am sorry if you consider my inference to be defamatory. I do not believe that I am saying anything incorrect in pointing out that you were once employed by the National Party (working as a consultant or somesuch) and that one of the biggest issues surrounding the EFB is how much National loses in donations. There is nothing defamatory or slanderous about that whatsoever and there is definitely a connection. (The inference is that there is a connection, not that you stand to gain, because you may never work for the Nats again.)

You are promoting yourself as a public political figure supposedly with views that we should listen to. I think you should read your response to my comment in light of that.

I commend you for opposing the EFB even if it means it puts you out of pocket regarding your business.

I am reasonably familiar with the bill at this stage from first hand read and public commentary. I am not an expert.

And when I call someone a liar and a hypocritical sock puppet, I own what I say rather than hiding behind convoluted semnatic hair-splitting.

Stick to facts rather than innuendos.

[Jesus Kent - you are cruising for a bruising. Strangely after I finished work at midnight last night I didn’t feel like blogging at 1 am. And hey as I had to be at Radio NZ before 7 am I didn’t have time to get up and blog at 5 am. And how inconsiderate of me to have had meetings non stop until 10.30 just so I could blog for your benefit. Tell you what Kent - give me a cheque for $150,000 and I’ll give up my jobs so I can blog on demand for you. If you are not prepared to do that, then shut the fuck up]

Whoah!! The Vicar of Dibley would give you a $1000 fine for that use of biblical language. I was just saying sorry. I do understand you are a busy person, but, hey, this is taking it a bit far, but wait, you are probably taking your interpretation of the EFB too far anyway.

Not to the extent that I’d act as covert sock puppet, Kent. Anyone who wants to hire me as a spin doctor is quite welcome to make their best offer, but we’re going to be hammering out a very generous pay package and a clear disclosure policy.

And when I call someone a liar and a hypocritical sock puppet, I own what I say rather than hiding behind convoluted semnatic hair-splitting. If DPF is trying to hide his employment history and partisan affiliations, he really sucks at it – despite the vapourings of folks like you and Tane.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501118&objectid=10477167

DPF’s outspoken-ness on this issue has landed him more publicity than ever before:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1501118&objectid=10477154

Maybe he is doing it in ‘good faith’. Maybe he has other motivations. It is really not mine to say, but I can point out some connections. And, yes, I would fight for my pay packet. Wouldn’t you?

An objective observation? Yes, dear.

I didn’t assert it, I inferred it, and there is a definite connection between funding of political parties and DPF’s previous employment. I am making what I consider is an objective observation, not a defamation or foul accusation. You can draw what you like from the observation and my motivation behind doing it.

[DPF: It is highly defamatory and most of all completely wrong. Have you read the bill Kent? Do you know what sort of company I own? Are you aware that my joke name for the Bill is the "Permanent enrichment of polling companies" Bill because it restricts greatly what a party can spend money on in election year, but exempts polling from that (as the current law does) which means that any surplus money is highly incentivised to go polling's way. Also with blogging being the only exempt form of online communication, I personally stand to do bloody well financially if this bill passes. I have acted very much against my financial interest with my opposition to the regulated period. It means an extra 8 months a year where a party can't spend money on anything but polling. Praise be to Mark Burton.]

Get a grip man.

I don’t think the term ‘good faith’ really applies to policy making. An argument is an argument and can be driven by any number of motivations. Depending on your style you may wage an argument through good logic, straight out abuse, evasion or subtle manoevring. You may argue from personal need, principle or morals and so on.

I am still waiting for DPF to put up his arguments regarding election advertising and publishing. See previous comment.

You have not answered the assertions yet. You have indicated the EB was wrong for daring to oppose Green Party policy. I am asking you, do you, Kent Parker and representative of the E-Party believe that people should not be allowed to speak their peace in freedom come election year?

Craig, financial connections cannot be ignored, and in politics we demand to know what the financial connections of our public political figures are.

I prefer to assume people are putting arguments forward in good faith, unless I have a very good reason to believe otherwise. Apparently you don’t, but I guess if you don’t want to (or can’t) seriously engage with the arguments DPF has put up, then the next best option is to float the innuendo that he’s only taking the position he does to line his own pocket.

Which as yet is still to happen.

[Jesus Kent - you are cruising for a bruising. Strangely after I finished work at midnight last night I didn't feel like blogging at 1 am. And hey as I had to be at Radio NZ before 7 am I didn't have time to get up and blog at 5 am. And how inconsiderate of me to have had meetings non stop until 10.30 just so I could blog for your benefit. Tell you what Kent - give me a cheque for $150,000 and I'll give up my jobs so I can blog on demand for you. If you are not prepared to do that, then shut the fuck up]

Kent, are you suggesting that people who wish to expose flawed policies are not allowed to do so?

I agree. The law is flawed. However, if enacted as is, it would not result in widespread and draconian loss of free speech, which is DPFs main platform and which he is getting you guys all worked up over. Instead it would result in confusion and the need to set solid legal precedents. The more confusing the law is, the more that judges have to refer to “the spirit of the legislation”, which in this case is clearly to limit third party spending on election advertising and not to prevent free speech.

Craig, financial connections cannot be ignored, and in politics we demand to know what the financial connections of our public political figures are. It is up to the figures themselves to decide whether good faith or financial self-interest is the leading factor in their thinking. Yeah, and personal innuendo is a great way to seal an argument.

Kent, are you suggesting that people who wish to expose flawed policies are not allowed to do so?

If, and entirely hypothetically, I had obtained secret emails from the National Party and converted them into a book attacking the National Party, I should not be allowed to publish that as it is a campaign that does not specify a party it supports?

Even though it is fairly clear that it is supportive of one party and attacking their opposition, might I add.

Do you honestly think people should not be allowed to comment against policies they disagree with?

National alone stands to lose 90% of its anonymous donations with these new regulations, which sheds some light on DPF’s reaction, given his close assocation as an employee of National. I would fight for my pay packet too.

Oh, that’s interesting… so anyone who vocally opposes the EFB isn’t doing so in good faith, but to protect their financial self-interest? Pretty slimy drive-by, Kent. Perhaps someone needs to take his own advice and get a life.