Helena Catt on Nine to Noon
Electoral Commission CEO Helena Catt was on Nine to Noon. Some extracts that should make everyone but the total zealots realise the Electoral Finance Bill should not proceed in its current form:
PRESENTER: It is your problem because you’re the one in the hot seat, or one of two senior officials in the hot seat, making just those decisions and you’re saying, as this bill stands, you can’t make them.
CATT: Yes we can’t make them. What we, what we said to the Select Committee was as it stands at the moment, the advice we would have to give to parties is seek your own legal advice.
This is a pretty serious statement. Parties rely on the Electoral Commission for advice, and they say the Bill is so flawed that they will not be able to advise in key areas as to what is or is not illegal. So parties will get their own legal advice (which will differ of course, as they like the EC won’t know what the law is) and it will inevitably lead to big court battles.
PRESENTER: Is this a case of poorly drafted legislation.
CATT: Ah, in some of these terms ah, yes. I think it is a case of not thinking through the ramifications for how you administer some of the components.
PRESENTER: What are then, your biggest concerns.
CATT: Our biggest concern as you said is how we define when an MP is acting in their capacity as an MP. The laws, the new bill says that if they’re acting in their capacity as a MP, then that activity is not to count towards election expenses. Our problem is we don’t know where that line is between acting in their capacity as an MP on the one hand and inducements to vote on the other hand.
As I keep saying, there is an easy answer for this. Nothing is so blatantly seeking to persuade or encourage votes as an election pledge card. So the Government needs to clearly state if it is their intention that an election pledge card is exempted from being a cost against a party’s limit if done via the Leader’s Budget.
They will not want to answer this question though, because the answer is yes, but they do not want to say yes because the public won’t like it. So instead we have bad unclear law.
PRESENTER: And yet we know from history that, that was precisely the debate in 2005, and MPs saw it one way and the Auditor-General saw it another way. You’re saying that there has been nothing to clarify or prevent that exact same debate going on again.
CATT: Exactly. There could be that debate again and that’s what, where the problem is. I mean the, the regulated period for this election starts on the first of January assuming the bill is passed. Everyone involved really needs to know where they are in terms of the law on the first of January. On any situation where we’ve got one, two, maybe three, four different interpretations then we run the risk of um, problems during the time between the first of January and election day.
CATT: Our fear is that um, that litigation will become part of the election campaign, you know, it will go the American route where each party lawyers-up and firing the lawyers at each other becomes as much part of the campaign as the traditional advertising, I mean, that’s the worst-case scenario, that’s our fear, that everywhere where we’ve got areas where interpretation isn’t clear that the parties will start using that as part of their attack on each other and that’s not going to do anything to encourage public interest in politics, trust in the election campaign.
Oh the way this Bill was developed has almost guaranteed this. If the Bill proceeds, I can almost guarantee we will end up like the US with litigation. It’s almost inevitable when the Commission themselves say hey we can not interpret this law.
And I think it is a safe prediction to make that every single publication that appears after 1 January with a parliamentary crest on it will be complained about by members of the public, and rulings sought on whether it should count to a party cap. MPs electorate newsletters will be targeted, brochures, everything.
Third party groups will sue over whether their campaign is an advertisement or not.
Press releases which do not comply with the law will be targeted. If a candidate makes a speech to a public meeting and does not give his address, they will be complained about.
Labour has destroyed the decades old convention of bipartisanship on these issues.
National had agreed to reasonable third party restrictions and a clamp down on anonymous donations.
All Labour had to do was convene multi-party talks in late 2006 or early 2007 and seek agreement on some key issues. They would have been able to get them. They didn’t even try. Then they should have produced a Bill which just added on a few clauses to the Electoral Act, and it would have sailed through.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Right, I am off to varsity as an adult student to study Law! I mean, if Sam Dixon can get a law degree, it cannot be that hard, can it?
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Sam Dixon got his law degree in a packet of Weet -bix . He thanked Sanitarium for it and everybody at the sub standard had a movie session with Howard .
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
DPF, I’m okay with the broad thrust of saying that an MPs activities as an MP should not be counted as election expenditure. Even during a campaign MPs will still have some duties as MPs rather than as candidates – such as looking after issues raised by voters in their electorate etc etc.
But I’d have thought it should be relatively easy to set a fairly strict net around those activities. And anything that looks like publicity or communications should be seen to be them acting as a candidate, rather than as an MP, and so it should quite rightly count towards their spending limits.
But of course, Labour, as drafters of this legislation, will have purposely set out to make this as vague and “flexible” as possible, So good on Helena Catt for throwing the spotlight on this.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I buy a lot of Weet Bix and I’ve never found a law degree in the box.
What a ridiculous comment.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
DPF, their intent was never to create a clear and clean electoral system. If it was do you honestly think the Labour party would have stuffed it up this badly?
Their intent was to skew the game in their favour. That’s the only logical explanation I can find for a bill that does so little to adress the very issues most people wanted solved while still introducing so many problems.
They wanted to give themselves the advantage whil disadvantaging everyone else.
(RRM – you need to eat more Weet Bix then. Enough fibre in your diet and you’ll begin to realize where D4J gets his comments from, anyway)
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
The Labour Party is simply going to charge ahead on this. The trouble will start when people are facing prosecution for doing very ordinary things – like criticising the Labour Party next year. Each time such a prosecution is brought the Labour Party will face a torrent of criticism. She thinks she can clamp down on public opinion in the same way she runs the Labour Party. She cannot of course. So we will have widespead defiance of the law with John Key saying National will repeal it promptly on taking office. He should then set up a special inquiry into electoral law including MMP to report back by Xmas 2009.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
“I buy a lot of Weet Bix and I’ve never found a law degree in the box.”
Look right down deep.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Not to deep as you might pull an All Black card , which is worse , a lawyer or what ?
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Good on ya…
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Well I for one intend to complain about every item from every party and I suggest those who oppose do the same . When you have governments who refuse to listen to the citizen then the citizens only legal redress is to use the law against the government.
This one wont be difficult You simply set up a template and drop the required info into it and sent it off.
Yes I know its going to be a pain in the arse for the civil servants and short term at least increase government spending to cope with the hopeful flood but in the long run it will be worth it.
Clogging the arteries of government is a legitimate and legal from of protest.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Tim – you are right, of course, but this could be the thin end of the wedge. What other dodgy legislative plans do they have up their sleeve if this gets through?
They need to be told now that democracy is not a toy, and this Bill needs to be Killed, Chopped Into Small Pieces, and Burned.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Gd – want to save us all the trouble and set up said template? Cheers
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
The Parliamentary Services Commission – which is, of course, made up of party representatives – has deliberately ensured that the definition of party and parliamentary activities is one whereby nearly everything can be classed as parliamentary activity, and only a few very blatant things (calls for money, votes, membership) are classed as party activity. This has meant that the parties can use parliamentary resources for partisan political purposes.
Until the 1970s and 1980s, however, parliamentary resources were widely seen by the politicians, officials, academics, and media to be ONLY spent on “legislative duties and helping constituents”. Maybe it’s time to return to that type of definition.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
This is a huge point that people are missing – the fear of legal action discouraging political participation.
Forget the big political parties complaining they worry about getting advice!!!! Boo hoo! That’s not the risk – at the end of the day a big political party can front up with the cash for legal battles and to stare down legal threats. It’s anyone outside a big political party that stands to lose.
It’s not that anyone *plans* on doing anything wrong – its the thought of “what if I make a mistake?”. One can’t say or do anything without fear of a legal challenge from the person or group they speak out against or the expense of legal advice.
You could completely remove the spending limit for instance, but still have uninterpretable definitions of what is required to have a name and address on it, and that still leaves a legal guillotine over citizens’ heads.
The only groups with the capacity contribute politically after this Bill are those that know they can afford the legal team when their opponents get pissed off – the big political parties.
Personally I don’t have any money myself so any legal challenge would crush me if I for instance – shock horror – uploaded a video to Youtube taking the piss out of certain party pill fear mongering National MPs. How dare I not put my name on it.
I simply can’t understand how the social democrat types here want this passed. It’s so out of line with what one would call the “spirit” of social democrats who have very often been the saviors of free speech and political participation. Look at the U.S for instance – all the supposed “lefties” kick the shit out of the U.S government with the ACLU whenever it tries to clamp down of official information releases and freedom of speech and privacy etc…. and I guess up until recently there was that great spirit in the social democrats here too.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
gd said “Well I for one intend to complain about every item from every party and I suggest those who oppose do the same . When you have governments who refuse to listen to the citizen then the citizens only legal redress is to use the law against the government. ”
The problem with that gd is that you could become like Frank, who has complained so frequently that his complaints are no longer taken seriously by whomever he is directing his complaint to. Still, might be worth a try!
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
IV2 Yes of course you are correct and thats why we need lots of people doing the same thing.
Buggerlugs better if we each ahve our own template letter even though the wording will be more or less the same
Otherwise the bastards will dismiss us as IV2 says.
Im going to get family and friends etc to send some of them in so they cant connect the dots with different surnames etc
You gotta play the game with these arseholes
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
And where pray tell is the Council for Civil Liberties.
this lot are usually first in line spraying it out over all and sundry.
You dont think they have been bought off by the …………………. NO surely not
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Kill the Bill. Hang Draw and Quarter. Along with our employees who are dictating to us employers their terms of selection. The Servants are now the Masters.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Tim – you are correct, however widespread public disobedience cannot be ruled out and if John Key confirmed retrospective repeal this would put the prosecutors in an untenable position which may effectively allow/encourage such widespread disobedience.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Excellent post, David. What you say is precisely what is going to happen. It will happen next year, as well, and I hope the label “Americanisation of NZ politics” becomes strongly and permanently associated with the Labour brand, and sinks them next election.
Perhaps this legislation is so bad it’s good – the attack on liberties needed to stimulate reform that enshrines the right to speech in a way that future governments cannot tamper with. It took arbitrary and repeated attacks on property to produce Magna Carta, perhaps Labour will do the same.
Whatever happens, I will personally do what I can to ensure Labour is long remembered as the party that tried to suppress democracy itself to stay in power in 2008.
Good point gd: where is the Council for Civil Liberties? Is this not their domain front and center?
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Willie is right
Litigation is always a consequence of complex regulation.
The Electoral Commission (with all due respect to Dr Catt) has deep pockets to hire lawyers to defend its interpretation of the law (they will probably construe their powers and the ambit of the EFA widely). Likewise the Chief Electoral Officer. Both have the support of the Ministry of Justice and Crown Law who will be particularly active the further away the issue in dispute is away from parliamentary parties (particularly if its some private individual who is “trying it on”)
Because of the broadness of the Act the Police will be called upon to exercise “common sense” i.e. use their discretion as to whether they will prosecute or not. This will likely lead to some transgressions being prosecuted and other similar ones are ignored – the authorisation statement issue is most likely where this will occur.
Every Parliamentary Party campaign will require comprehensive legal advice before they do anything and because the big two Parties are right up against the spending caps the risks of litigation are very high.
If a dispute involves something done by an MP (and widely done by other MPs) and the complaint is a non MP and non Parliamentary Party and the thing complained about was within the rules of Parliament, Parliamentary Service may well engage legal advice and Barristers to ensure the interest of Parliament are represented in any legal action.
Any MP who is an incumbent (particularly those not going on the list) whose seat is marginal would be wise to also get individual legal advice (arguably not an electoral expense).
Anybody foolish enough to register as a “third Party” under the Act will likewise need good legal advice. Non third party advocacy groups likewise.
Those looking to skirt the EFB altogether by for example engaging in internet campaigning beyond the reach of NZ Law (duh NZ trying to regulate the internet is the ultimate in overreach) will be employing lawyers.
The EFB will promote the growth of new newsmedia because they are relatively lightly regulated under the EFB. And anyone can set up a newspaper and even distribute free copies of it. Existing newsmedia and new newsmedia will be hiring lawyers.
My my a picture is starting to emerge.
It’s a wonder why the law society rightfully opposed this law – it will mean an increase of income for some many of its members both as advisors and litigators. I pick that because NZ electoral laws are now so complex; contain so many exemptions and qualifications that Electoral law will emerge as a significant speciality area of the law in New Zealand.
And who gets crunched – the ordinary citizen.
BTW if Helena Catt ever requires assistance to dispose of thousands of dollars of cryfish received by a Party over and above its maximum level of anonymous donations – I will reluctantly help with the disposal – come to the aid of the Country and all of that.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
So now it is those who refuse to join your increasingly hysterical, fringe campaign that are the “zealots” David?
Did yesterday’s fiasco not even give you the slightest pause for thought?
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Inventory2: “The problem with that gd is that you could become like Frank, who has complained so frequently that his complaints are no longer taken seriously by whomever he is directing his complaint to. Still, might be worth a try!”
The Official Information Act 1982 with the help of the Ombudsman is a VERY USEFUL TOOL. IT WILL EVENTUALLY TRIP SOMEONE UP.
Every communication leaves a paper trail. All Public Servants undergo a course in Deviency. Subject matter is deliberately avoided followed by waffled platitudes. Comprehension is a non requirement.
That is why the Minister Of Police, under the Official Information Act 1982 revealed directives to file, Allegations of Corruption amongst Senior Police Officers, sent to the Hon Helen Clark Prime Minister, that had been forwarded to the minister of Police.
Fellow Bloggers you have to remember these MPs are not above the Law. They are in the Service of the Crown
Lesson 1: Advantage themselves to the disadvantage of others, and it is a breach of the Crimes Act 1961. REMEMBER THIS.
Look at MPs behaviour, considered in the light of their actions Do they breach the Crimes Act?
Has any MP, State Services Officer, etc., in the Service of the Crown ever been charged under this provision? Never ? Why Not? Easy. A corrupt police force!
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
sonic said “Did yesterday’s fiasco not even give you the slightest pause for thought?”
sonic – that’s not a very nice thing to say about Annette King and Pete Hodgson’s performance in the House”
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
David – Annette King has just said that
“the capacity of of an MP excludes an inducement to vote”. So there goes your argument I’m afraid.
[DPF: Oh yes that makes it crystal clear. Now ask her whether the pledge card was an inducement to vote. Anyway not me that needs to be convinced - its the Electoral Commission who I suspect will not find a student from Dunedin declaring "That's settled" as adequate"]
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Isn’t it fascinating. One of the big catch cries of the reds in Labour has been they want to avoid the “Americanisation” of NZ politics where the one with the deepest pocket wins.
How ironic that Catt says that this legislation will result in an american style of campaigning with constant litigation.
Ironic indeed!
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Also David – Take note:
This would seem to preclude the pledge card.
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Jesus that is a stupid comment Sonic.
November 22nd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
In the matter of MP’s and or parties informing their constituents, if they are only keeping their membership informed by newsletter etc – this is not publicity campaigning to the wider public.
The problem is that, what currently occurs 2 years 9 months of the cycle, may now only occur 2 years of it, this because people will be careful in the 3rd year – because of litigation (it might inspire a rush of electorate candidates seeking a place on the list – presuming they can still stay in parliament if they lose the electorate in litigation).
The thrust of the Labour position is equal participation in the campaigning process – which others have portrayed as a restraint on our right of free speech (because it restrains the ability of some to use their greater capability to declare and promote their view). Thus Labour sees itself as being condemned merely reducing the privilege of some, which they see as part of politics not the arena of our shared civil liberties. For their part some on the right (such as the Herald) clearly want to restrain government and merely use right of free speech to enable the haves to dominate capmpaign debate. This undermines the civil liberties cause they purport to be of. Those sceptical on both the EFB and the STA matters have some consistency at least and need not be labled hypocrits, as some others should be.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
What do you think about this David?
The National Party had spent most of its leader’s budget on elections advertising early in 2005 as it believed that the Election was going to take place in the first half of that year.
Doug Wollerton of NZ First – Quoting Colin Espinar of the Christchurch Press.
The National Party’s spending escaped the same legal fate as the pledge card by sheer luck. Interesting when you’re presented with all the facts isn’t it. It appears that National don’t have a moral leg to stand on when it comes to the pledge card issue.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Hi Roger – I think that Kevin Brady would disagree with you on that one. Are you trying to say that the pledge card did not encourage people to vote for Labour? If so, perhaps you can explain why Labour had it printed and distributed>
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Should have been “Doug Woolerton”
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Mark – you seem to be confused. What’s your point?
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
The point is that Kevin Brady found in 2005 that the pledge card did in fact encourage people to vote Labour. Therefore it would be included as an election advertisement under the EJB under his interpretation.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:25 pm
rn, if you are referring to the billboards, they were paid for by the party – not the taxpayer.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
The EJB? If you mean the EFB then you’re just confirming my point (that the pledge card would indeed be caught be the EFB) – yet you seem to think that you’re arguing against me?
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
An MP is claiming that free speech by individuals is not limited by the EFB, nor lobbying of government by organisations etc – as the terms of the bill apply only to registered third parties.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Yeah and then National voted for restrospective policy which made it legal anyway!!!!!
No moral leg to stand on at all!
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Should it not be simple for the Electoral Commission to just get a ruling on every case from Crown Law ?
Crown Law have some great lawyers….notables like Val Sim …..Yippeeeee!!!
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“if you are referring to the billboards, they were paid for by the party”
Clearly that’s not what Espinar was referring to then – he explicitly stated that National used its leader’s budget on electioneering before the three months leading up to the election – that’s public, not private money. To clarigy, the only reason they weren’t caught by the Auditor general was that he olny looked at the 3 months before the election – after National “rorted the public purse”.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“Yeah and then National voted for restrospective policy which made it legal anyway!!!!!”
I bet they would have had they been right about the election being in the first half of the year! They would have been prosecuted along with all the other parties, bar “Jim’s Progressives”.
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Sorry Roger, when I read “This would seem to preclude the pledge card.” I was reading that you were saying that the definition would not include the pledge card (i.e. the legislation would not cover it). Sorry – I assumed that because you were a lefty you would support Labour’s position. My bad!
Yeah, I was thinking about something else – it should have been EFB. I guess that gives away my profession then.
November 22nd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
roger, I believe that between the EFB and the other electoral legislation being introduced, it specifically excludes anything funded from government being an election advertisement, even if it would otherwise be caught by the definition. You need to look a bit harder.
November 22nd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
What strikes me about this is that since Labour has jacked up a bill designed to favour the incumbent, they must surely have considered the possibility that they might lose this election and then they would suffer the very same gross disadvantages in the following election that they are wishing on their opponents now. I can only conclude that they’re banking on the fact that a National government would reverse this corrupt rort once they got in power. In other words Labour is relying on National being more honourable than themselves.
November 22nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
It does to a degree favour the incumbent (not just the coalition in government however but also parties represented in parliament including National) and limit what those out of government can do.
But some opposition to it, is based on limiting government – especially those in power and enabling the greater capacity of some to speak to the wider public with a louder voice. Those doing so at this time have their own interest involved.
That same interest would lead them to lift caps on outside spending, while they continued with government policy publicity advantages when in office. No one is under any illusion about what National would do when in power themselves.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
SPC, you seem to think so. How about you tell us what National would do in power and see whether your illusion is the same as ours?
DPF has pointed to a large number of problems with this bill. Do you agree that we would be much better with a bill that didn’t have those problems? Do you agree that there is no particular issue with allowing the next election to be fought under the same rules as for the last 4-5 elections, and then fix it properly through multi-party consensus after the election?
National has been clear that they will support limits on anonymous donations (and would be prepared to go a lot further than Labour did), and that they would be happy to impose limits on govt advertising in the run up to the election. They are also happy with limits on third party campaigns, but want limits that still allow somebody with a message to actually publicise it. I expect that a bill that National designed would be in many ways tighter than this one, but without the obvious flaws that this one has.
On the third party campaign limit, which so much focus seems to be on (despite it being only one of many flaws, and despite it not achieving its stated intent of preventing a campaign like the EB ran) is so low that you couldn’t actually run a campaign with it. I know that Roger and your other friends oppose a higher limit on the grounds that they personally wouldn’t have the money to run a national campaign, so nobody else should either, but that is pure and simple politics of envy. There are plenty of groups that could run a campaign this large if they chose to do so, and they aren’t all “big business” or whatever prejudicial phrase we are using today. Forest and Bird, for example, have a communications budget in a year that well exceeds this limit. If, for whatever reason, they chose to direct it all towards a single campaign, they would break the limit. Does that sound reasonable? Stop assuming that everyone with this amount of money is and must be evil, and start with the question of what a legitimate amount of money would be for a group to run a modest national campaign over a 9 month period. Does the limit as currently stated allow this?
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Paul L
I guess you have no problem with anonymous donations funding political parties (despite Transparency International’s comments about what is usually banned/restricted overseas) and no problem with people organising the subversion of party campaign caps by funding change the government campaigns in league with the opposition party – as was explained in yesterdays Herald. I do. So I have no problem with a temporary fix for 2008 and a review for elections beyond then.
My own take on it was that the first move should be to tidy up the anonymous donations side. This has finally and belatedly been moved on – done to a limited degree (Labour and the Greens were limited by failure to have a majority in favour of state funding to go further – in this area I prefer matching funds – tax funding equivalent to membership payments up to a $100pa maximum).
The other two issues are government policy publicity during the campaign period (because of the new year long period as much as anything) being questioned and third party campaigning. I am somewhat licentious on the former whoever is in government (so long as it is not campaigning) and was not that interested in the latter until the underhanded EB campaign (the change the government strategy of attacking Labour and Greens to fall outside the National cap). This has opened up a whole can of worms – other countries have restrictions, but this is the area that is most complicated.
I would rather look at citing some groups as issue orientated and non partisan and exempting them from caps. Yet other groups having mixed roles advocacy but tinged with political favour (a higher cap). And finally others as fronts for very partisan campaigns who should be either party cap related or severely restricted (lower cap). Maybe the government should pass the rest of the bill and work further on this third party side of it and have that part into effect by say 1 March next year (allowing further submissions on this matter).
Paul L
“How about you tell us what National would do in power and see whether your illusion is the same as ours?”
As I have already said I would guess that National’s opposition to the level of third party caps speaks as to what they would do. And while they have been concerned about what government might do – I expect when faced with the anonymous donations restraint, they would in government accept the tradition of government informing the public of policy when in office. I guess I have 50/50 chance of being proven right.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Here’s an example of National’s taxpayer funded electioneering material.
I don’t really have a problem with parties doing this sort of thing — I think it’s important that the public know what parties stand for. But it does show up the braying over the pledge card as a bit hypocritical.
The Electoral Commission’s biggest problem with the EFB is a lack of clarity over what is electioneering and what is parliamentary business. I hope something’s done about that, but it’s not like there wasn’t confusion over the exact same distinction last time.
November 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
And Paul L you claim that seeking any restraint on those with money having their view dominant in the public arena during campaign periods is somehow an envy of those who have both have the wealth and who would want to use it to get their way. By that arguement collective security or security alliances are premised on envy of a more powerful nation.
I guess you see graduated income tax and public education and health care in the same way – the result of the envy of those on low incomes who could not afford schooling or health care.
So you see the power of money as legitimacy and the modern way of
power (just check out the US Congress to see that), before the democratic process it was simply the order of the fuedal knight or hired gun. Then came the Levellers and todays advocacy of a level playing field – meritocracy, not the primacy of money in the democratic process.
November 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 pm
No SPC, you are willfully ignoring what I said. The limit that this bill sets is too low – you cannot run a decent national campaign. That is different from arguing for no limit at all. I think it reasonable that if a group has an issue they want to put out there for consideration, that they would be able to run a week of TV ads on prime time (say 1 ad per day per channel), or 2-3 days of full page ads in the major daily newspapers. Less than that you aren’t really getting any message across. That isn’t drowning out other voices, it is just getting your message across.
Otherwise any group with a message has to filter it through the media. They are entirely beholden to what the media consider to be interesting or true. I don’t see why we would want everything that we learn to be filtered by a group of people who have demonstrated no reason for giving them that trust. They actively avoid any decent messages from minor parties, they avoid any non mainstream opinion, they do shallow research and present poor arguments. In general the media are a liability to a number of causes because they present the case so poorly that they turn people off.
I don’t understand why you think $120k is a reasonable limit. It seems to have no basis other than that it would help the Labour party. And even that is doubtful given the number of ways around the limit for someone determined to game the system. The problem is that anybody who is honest cannot actually run a campaign. It is ludicrous.
I don’t know what full page daily ads cost, but from what DPF is saying (and I figure he probably knows) a limit around 300K would let you run a proper campaign. Can you justify why 120K is a better limit than 300K?
And on anonymous donations – I have no problem with small anonymous donations. Large ones I think put some question over who and why, and whether there is influence being purchased. So I would simply put a limit on anonymous donations – none over $5K. That isn’t what Labour did, they went the unprincipled approach – nobody can get more anonymous donations than us, but we want to keep ours. There is no rational way you can argue that large anonymous donations are OK so long as they don’t total more than a certain amount – they’re OK or they’re not. Putting a ceiling on individual donations does make sense – if they are small then they aren’t buying influence.
November 23rd, 2007 at 12:03 am
$120k is 5% of the $2.4m party limit (Green Party). I think the idea is to stop parties from significantly increasing their own spending by advertising through third parties, so the limit must be small relative to the party limit.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:04 am
Paul L
Paul L “I don’t understand why you think $120k is a reasonable limit.”
Why would you think I was supporting $120,000 limits – or any other number? I used none.
I mentioned unlimited, and a greater or lesser cap based on differing types of third parties. Are you confusing those you debate with here with the Labour government?
“And even that is doubtful given the number of ways around the limit for someone determined to game the system.”
If the limit helpful to the Labour Party is so easy to subvert, what’s your concern with it then?
“I don’t know what full page daily ads cost, but from what DPF is saying (and I figure he probably knows) a limit around 300K would let you run a proper campaign. Can you justify why 120K is a better limit than 300K?”
I have no need to. I am not proposing any legislation. Have you any good reason for arguing for $300,000 (is this National’s hoped for 2011 cap should they win in 2008?) is more appropriate. Anyone can effectively pool resources and tag relay a campaign via several separate groups networking. Limiting the amount for any one at least checks the flood of anonymous donation money that could move into newly created third party fronts (which may come with limits on anonymous donations to the political parties).
On anonymous donations
[Coalition for Open Government spokesman Steven Price said the restrictions on anonymous donations should be tightened further to stop all anonymous donations of more than $1000 - a stance the Green Party is also calling for.]
You would prefer this, but at the $5000 level. The problem is the number of fronts people can use to donate $1000 or $5000 over and over again.
Which is why a total amount cap to any political party from anonymous donations is appropriate and the lower $1000 amount level better.
People can still donate $5000 “publicly”, if they wish. Green MP’s do by offering up part of their annual salary.
November 23rd, 2007 at 7:33 am
SPC you totally pulled all that stuff about collective security and money right out of your ass. How about addressing what PaulL actually says rather than making up three paragraphs of straw men than “you guess” is what he would say ?
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 pm
I was responding to this commetn from Paul L “troll fiend”.
“oppose a higher limit on the grounds that they personally wouldn’t have the money to run a national campaign, so nobody else should either, but that is pure and simple politics of envy.”
To suggest concern about the involement of money in the democratic process is motivated by the “politics of envy” and jealousy of the haves having the money to spend in the process deserves to get the response to which I gave it.