Greens on Electoral Finance Bill
The Greens are upset with the Herald for editing part of their 200 words on the Electoral Finance Bill, which criticised the Herald editorial as being misleading.
I don’t think the Herald should have edited the contribution, but it is rich of the Greens to say the Herald was misleading. Let us look at what the Greens say:
EFB does not stop anyone saying anything anytime.
Untrue. The bill which came out of Select Committee required a protester to state his name or address if advocating for or against a party. This was added in by the Greens and allies. The latest version makes it an offence to post an opinion to Internet newsgroups advocating for or against a party, unless you include your name and address with it. The Greens voted against an amendment to allow such advocacy on the Internet, without requiring names and addresses.
EFB places no restrictions on press.
Untrue. The Greens voted against an amendment which would have exempted the press. The current Bill only exempts the press if what they write is solely to inform, entertain or enlighten.
EFB places no restrictions on paid issue advertising.
Untrue. The Labour Crazy Car policy campaign will be illegal next year as the $300,000 cost exceeds the $120,000 limit. Advertising on an issue in a way which may encourage people to vote for or against parties on that issue is now an election advertisement. This will include a campaign to support candidates who support cannabis legalisation or support parties which support Kyoto.
EFB only caps advertising spending if trying to persuade people to vote for or against a party – cap at $120,000.
Half truth. It also caps it for campaigns for or against a class of parties described by their policies. For example one could only spend $120,000 campaigning against parties which supported the Electoral Finance Bill – even if you do not name them.
Repeat, EFB only caps electioneering spending. EFB caps party advertising spending at $2.4m.
The definition of electioneering now includes placards and posts into Usenet. It also includes advocating for or against a policy in such a way which may encourage support for or against parties who agree or disagree with that policy.
National responsible for EFB. National evaded party spending cap by using Exclusive Brethren for parallel ‘vote National’ anti-Green campaign. Showed loophole in existing law.
The Greens would have more credibility on this issue if they just once mentioned that Labour blatantly broke the law, overspending by $800,000, and that this law is going to make legal Labour’s illegal actions and make illegal what was legal.
They would also have credibility of they acknowledge that National has said it supports reasonable limits on third party advocacy. The EFB just isn’t reasonable.
If don’t close loophole, parallel groups can spend unlimited millions in ‘party vote’ campaigning.
Greens also don’t mention they have ignored the advice of the Electoral Commission and set the limits at under 50% of what was recommended, to try and suppress criticism. Almost no-one is advocating no limits at all on third party campaigning. It is a red herring from the Greens. The issue is the very low limit and having it extend to all year instead of 90 days.
Result – politicians owned by those who funded their campaign, not by voters.
Yet the Greens did a deal with Labour to allow anonymous donations to remain legal. They also failed to move an amendment at committee stage to ban them. They have failed to live up to their principles.
That’s why need cap on election spending by parties and other groups. See USA for evidence – best elections money can buy.
Now this is the stupidest thing they have said. Almost every change being made will bring us closer to the US in terms of how campaigns are funded. The US has more campaign finance laws than any other country. And all the experience has been is they make the system dirtier as they force the money underground.
Human Rights Commission agreed with Greens’ changes to protect freedom of speech.
Yet he ignores they still oppose the Bill as it doesn’t retain the 90 day regulated period, and they did not give the public a chance to submit on the amended bill.
Rallies against EFB organised by Business Roundtable member. BRT members made secret donations to National via secret trusts. See ‘Hollow Men’ by Nicky Hager.
The rallies are not about the donations. They were not even in the original bill. This is a nother red herring. It is about a law which will turn everyday political advocacy in election year, into regulated election advertising – including protest march placards and posts to Usenet.
National opposed Green idea of citizens’ assembly to decide campaign finance rules.
And here once again the Greens abandon any sign of principle or integrity by not mentioning Labour also voted against. And the reasons they were voted down is because the Greens want a review of the law to start just 60 days after the law is passed. How insane is that?
They know this is a flawed bad law. They know Labour has totally stuffed this up. But instead of acknowledging this, they play politics with our constitution and tell lies about it.
So for the Greens to complain about the Herald’s editorial is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
UPDATE: Graeme Edgeler has done a fisking over on the Greens blog. Much better than my effort.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
This is fascinating – now I know where James Sleep found his talking points. Hello, something rings a little hollow.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Yes – Well im pretty sure I mentioned that.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Just make sure you’re honest on this thread James – no porkies now d’ya hear?
December 9th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Speaking of philosophical Greens….
From over at Blairs…..paco writes re T model Fords, but the message is universal…..
“Paco. Listen, that stuff the Socialist Party’s putting out is beginning to sound comical instead of frightening. Remember, the idea is to maintain the notion that socialism is still a viable threat, so that consumers will be distracted from the obsolescence issues surrounding the products we sell by the specter of being ruled by frigid women with butch haircuts and coke-bottle eyeglasses. Now, I’m reading this latest piece you and MarkL wrote on the British Socialists’ web site, and it’s just becoming a joke. Windmill power? C’mon! Even Ted Kennedy’s not buying into that – not in his own backyard, anyway. And all that “revenge of Gaia” crap. Next thing I know, you and Mark will be stealing from the script of Jason and the Argonauts and pitting Neptune against Exxon/Mobil’s container ships; maybe an army of skeleton jihadists armed with rusty swords fighting it out with Blackhawk Security. Keep it real! Confiscation of private property, government run by scruffy-looking, tubercular poli-sci majors, concentration camps for smokers, Hillary Perón!. That’s the way to go. Now, pay attention to detail and hop to it!”
December 9th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Yes – Well im pretty sure I mentioned that. Yeah right
December 9th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Oh dear James. That’s right up there with “you’re goddamn right I ordered the Code Red!”
If you do one day decide to go to university, at least use the thesaurus to change a few of the words before you plaigarise for your Political Science essays…
December 9th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
James Sleep:
You’re pretty sure? Try doing a side-by-side comparison of your talking points and the Green Party op-ed. It’s an exact match.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Oh Dear
The Herald is no longer toeing the commie line. How sad. Perhaps the loss of green/commie support in Auckland is starting to piss the Green/water melons off.
Just a small point but isn’t the Herald owned by private individuals and how dare they edit the water melons crap. Must get a law against that. Oh I forgot that is what is planned by the Liarbours.
Granny Herald you are getting better every day.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Sorry young Master Sleep,
You just got 1st class numpty honours!
Report card: Spelling improved marginally, but grammar could do with work. Should really look for some originality in fictional composition.
Overall E (fb) -
December 9th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I said – I’m pretty sure i mentioned that I took his comments.
I did mention it on the other post.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Mate – a wee tip. Do what the other leftys do when they’re caught out and pop over to the substandard for a break while we rip you a new one.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Guys – trying to score points against James is fairly self defeating. At best you out debate a 15 year old, while at worse you don’t.
If James makes a sensible valid point (which he is capable of), then respond to his points. But don’t get into flamewars with him.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
James Sleep:
You shouldn’t tell porkies. Where do I find the statement of attribution in your post?
On this thread more generally, the Greens come off looking pretty silly – the deleted opening paragraph:
The substituted closing paragraph:
I have to say this is a storm in a teacup. What the Greens should have done, if they wanted to promote their website, is pay for a full-page ad – just like everyone else.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
DPF – WADROC, he’s been warned several times today. Wouldn’t be surprised if those woofters from the substandard put him up to keep posting.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
So this is the Green’s without Rod Donald eh. Sucking up to the party that has campaigned all over their core policies for the last 8 years to get a crack at the treasury benches. Their desire for 2008 – a different bunch of poodles voting on Labour policy!
So Labour aren’t Labour anymore, the Greens just sell out to get better pay packets and Winston First is Winston First as always. Looks like National and ACT are the only logical choices left – bring on the ‘Free Speech’ party !
December 9th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Dave, like the National Party, lacks the killer instinct.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
The Labour defeat is in the wind, the MSM is no longer sucking up to them.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Burt -
When was the last time you heard the Green Party providing real leadership on environmental issues (and I’m not talking about energy efficiency in the home).
Their contribution to the emission reduction debate is a bit like a James Sleep comment – cut and paste and flimsy as fuck.
They have not responded to National’s attempts to take the role of political leader in the environment debate.
Instead, their MPs have gone back to what they know best – social engineering and telling people how to live their lives.
The sooner the people who vote for them because they are called the ‘Green’ Party see the light, the sooner we can through these troughers out.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Meant throw. Not through. Throw through a 9th floor window maybe, although that might attract serious demerits, not to mention a sore back…
December 9th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
That Tina is the one thing National really do need to have. Releasing a DVD with Key sounding all folksy won’t cut the mustard either.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Buggerlugs
The integrity and ethics of the Green party departed with Rod Donald. Just a bunch a mealy mouthed left wing, world owes them a living, types infest the empty shell of the party now. Agree, all they are now is basically an environmental flag waving left wing lobby group to rally the gullible into supporting Labour.
Sad, still it’s well reflected in the stats DPF published yesterday, they are clearly ineffective.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
The Greens are down to one person. How much longer can she keep them afloat? Who even remembers the name of the present Co-Leader? Is he still alive? Has he been planted under a tree for compost? Was there a ceremony? If so, I missed it.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Russel.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
“See USA for evidence – best elections money can buy. ”
Yet we have Huckabee leading in Iowa by 2:1 and the guys got no money. Sort of confirms what we are hearing from those who have studied it here that money does not win elections, the message does.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
The question we are all asking is whether the Greens would have got into this jack-up had Rod Donald been alive. They have allowed themselves to be manipulated into a sleezy backroom deal with Labour and now they will pay the price for that. Electoral Law is not something that gets jacked up behind the scenes to attack you major opponent and gets used for partisan advantage. They kept National out of the process for as long as possible to shaft them. And the Greens were a willing participant.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I think the Greens have turned into a bunch of gravy-sucking pigs.
There, I’ve said it.
December 10th, 2007 at 12:27 am
The left, particularly Helen Clark, are very good at boiling down an issue to a slogan “stop big money buy an election”. She simplifys the issue, plays on Breathren prejudice and hopes people aren’t stupid enough to look any further.
Anyone that actually digs a little deeper into the bill i.e. DPF, lawyers, accountants, journos, academics, sees it’s deeply flawed. But to communicate how it’s flawed to the general population involves more than a mere slogan.
So what annoys me about Helen Clark, the university lecturer, is essentially riding on the coattails of stupid people she can con. Certainly a bit of irony there.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:50 am
I couldn’t agree more – the petulant and ever so slightly paranoid tone of the paragraph that was removed would have just made Norman look even more foolish.
FFS, I can excuse the ‘grammer’; but if that’s the general standard of prose and argument that comes from Russel Norman, I’m not surprise The Herald doesn’t print them. Made D4J and philu look like founts of Churchillian eloquence couched in prose of Hemingway-like clarity.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Just to add something as someone who has dealt with contributed articles … people who can’t stick to word limits are a pain in the arse.
Steps you can take include: simply guillotining the article at 200 words. This might seem satisfying but because such articles are generally bulding to a conclusion or summary, taking such a step is a disservice to readers.
If there is time – and there rarely is, unfortunately – you can go back to the writer and get them to cut it down. Obviously this is the best approach – again, if there is time.
Thirdly you edit it yourself. You condense it to the main issue. Which in this case I suggest is the points about the EFB, not whether or not the Herald should be taking the stance it is.
Is the Herald running contributions to its ‘letters to the editor’ page criticising its stance? I gather it is. Perhaps Norman should make his points there.
December 10th, 2007 at 7:24 am
If they were told they had two hundred words and took more than they were allotted, they obviously felt that they were ‘special cases’ and din’t need to stick to the rules that every one else must stick by. Completely in keeping with the spirit of the EFB and the petty mentality which got their support for it in the first place.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:06 am
It is the petulant whining of the Greens for having their policies exposed as fraudlent by the Exclusive Brethren that brought this about. They are more dishonest as a party than even Labour is, which is saying a lot.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:22 am
I am still waiting for an INFORMED (my emphasis) rebuttal of the points raised in the infamous Greens/EB pamphlet. If Russell Norman can whizz out more than 200 words for the Herald in next to no time, you’d think that he, or someone else within the Greens could have by now provided a point-by-point analysis, and told us all what was so scandalous and objectionable about the pamphlet – I mean heck, it’s more than two years now!
The absence of rebuttal leaves only one conclusion – that the EFB is a massive over-reaction, and an attempt to punish anyone who dared not follow the party line.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:47 am
It is indeed, IV2. The Greens do have a rebuttal online, but it is very basic and concedes that many of the points the Exclusive Brethren made are either true or half true.
Zentiger hower fisked them completely and accurately over a series of four or five posts at the time. I wish there was a way to get him to repost that content, but I fear we might need Al for that.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Pascal/IV2 – luckily, the EB/Green fisking from Zentiger occurred when Sir Humphrey’s was on blogspot, so the information is all still there. Here’s the link to the overall page:
http://sirhumphreys.blogspot.com/2005/09/exclusive-brethren-vs-greens.html
Which has the rundown of the lot, and links to individual pages on each claim and counter-claim.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Another point: I had a letter published in the New Zealand Herald last week that had been cut by about fifty percent Kind of annoying, but I can’t really complain that I was ‘censored’ in any way, shape, or form – it was printed after all, and most letters to the editor aren’t. My point was not distorted, and democratic discourse isn’t really diminished because a (to be perfectly honest) not very pertinent side-bar to the main argument got trimmed.
December 10th, 2007 at 9:28 am
QUICK QUESTION:
has the international media picked up on this disaster of a bill??
has anyone put out press releases?? how bout one to reuters??
NEW ZEALAND make it illegal to criticise government or something similar.
compare helen to chavez.. that type of thing.
helen would stop the bill if there was international condemnation.
imagine the banner on CNN and Fox news all day – NZ make it illegal to…
December 10th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Graeme: Pascal/IV2 – luckily, the EB/Green fisking from Zentiger occurred when Sir Humphrey’s was on blogspot
Fabulous, thank you kindly. A note to anyone wanting to read that though, you must click through once to get to the detailed posts that Zentiger made on the subject. And that links to his references. Don’t just skim the highlights.
Re-reading that makes me realize how much of a Green party led beatup this whole issue has been. It’s sickening, actually.
December 10th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Made D4J and philu look like founts of Churchillian eloquence couched in prose of Hemingway-like clarity.
Your wit cuts like a warm knife through butter Craig, maybe you should stand for National – you may even give Cullen run for our money.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:15 am
VERY GOOD, guys, the NZ public needs to KNOW that the EB leaflet on the Greens was actually pretty right. Keep plugging this. If the Nats had a spine they wouldn’t have let the Greens and the MSM get away with repeatedly calling it a “smear”. What the Greens and the MSM did was a typically Orwellian leftist tactic, use terms that apply to the exact opposite of the situation. And Tane and Co claim the MSM is “right wing”.
By the way, “Graeme Edgeler has done a fisking over at the Greens blog”.
AND IT’S DOOOOOOWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN !!!!!!!!!!
SURPRISE, SURPRISE.
Didn’t this happen when the EB leaflet came out too, so people couldn’t access the site for confirmation of what the leaflet was saying?
December 10th, 2007 at 11:44 am
And still the secret money is going to buy those bastards off. For those who lack the wit the scenario will be as follows.
Person representing donor will approach person associated with political party and inform of ‘favours”required in return for “anonymous donation of $X”
Person associated with political party will pass on such request verbally thru channels so as to ‘protect” guilty.
Donors representative will lodge donation with Electoral Commission.
See its really quite simple
December 10th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Are the Greens complaining that someone restricted their freedom of expression?
Priceless!!!
December 10th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“Your wit cuts like a warm knife through butter Craig, maybe you should stand for National – you may even give Cullen run for our money.”
I take it you haven’t heard his voice bev?
December 10th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
What a nasty little quip.
December 10th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
NX:
Nome by name – Troll by nature. Don’t rise to the bait; obviously been getting on some wingnut nerves recently, but that’s their problem not ours, ay?