Growing confusion over Electoral Finance Bill
December 18th, 2007 at 6:49 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports Steven Price from the Coalition for Open Government saying that despite the regulated period being all of 2008, an advertisement might start off the year legal, yet end up illegal at some unspecified time closer to the election.
This just goes to show what a mess things will be. The true impact of the Bill will not be how many people get prosecuted, but how many people don’t speak out because they don’t know if doing so will be legal or not.
As Bill English says:
Mr English said under the current law there was a “bright line” at three months before the election and there was nothing in the bill to steer the Electoral Commission towards having a different rule on January 7 than a week before the election.
The bright line gives certainity. Now advertisers have to face that their advertisements may become illegal on some unspecified date. Good law is meant to have as little uncertainty as possible.
And this is not the only area of confusion. The Electoral Commission still has no definition of how the exemption for MPs in their role as MPs is meant to work. Instead they will have to rely on whatever partisan interpretation Annette King invents during her third reading speech today. And no one really knows how a Court will interpret this area.
Related posts:
- The Electoral Finance Bill and the Bill of Rights
- Incinerate the Electoral Finance Bill
- Rodney on Electoral Finance Bill
- Anderton and Dunne get it wrong on Electoral Finance Bill
December 18th, 2007 at 6:56 am
What if Annette King’s interpretation is the interpretation that the Electoral Commission gives. In other words, if the EC is allowed to give an interpretation in January and another one on May, and another one in October, decisions are not based on law, or consistant interpretation, it is based on inconsistant interpretation by authorities or the courts
Thats exacty the reason why the smacking bill was introduced – to avoid such misinterpretation. Yet people are still smacking their kids, and people will still speak out publicly against teh government – its just that the latter is more likely to be caught breaking the law, even if the interpretaion of that law is so subjective we dont know if lawbreaking will have sanctions.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 7:08 am
This really has become farcical. The EFB was apallingly drafted, its progress through the House has been shameful, and even today, as it is set to become law, no-one really understands the intent of the law, let alone how it will be interpreted. For Parliament to “wimp out” and leave it to the courts to interpret the proposed law is a serious and gross abuse of parliamentary process, and the parties supporting the passage of the law should hang their heads in shame.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Even if one supports the principles of the EFB surely you would look at this and think: “Whoa, if I paid the salary of the person writing this they’d SO get themselves fired.” Then I remember, but we do! So how shit do you have to be at your job before your employer gets rid of you?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 7:48 am
The Interpretation Act will have to be applied. Whatever is written in the Act is meaningful, even the Preamble; the parliamentary context is not. King’s jurisprudence extensions of commonsense are meaningless. The notion that the law may be applied differently depending upon the time of the year is similar to the test Auditor General used when determining what what was electioneering by MP’s. I am waiting on the new Act, to dissect it. Does any MP actually know the text of what they propose to enact into law today? This government and friends can stew in its own vile juices. When they have done the deed then we can get the knives out to dissect up the turkey.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 7:52 am
My fear is that the government will pull the bill at the last minute. This will increase the chance of a Labour/Communist election win.
They can’t be so stupid as to go through with this bill, can they?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Ross – if they pull it they look desperate, poll-driven and opportunistic…so what’s different from any other day in the life of Labour? It’s gone too far to pull it now. They should have done it before the second reading.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:16 am
I have suggested before that few New Zealanders actually know any detail of any law, like for example, the Crimes Act – they just live by what they themselves know is right or wrong. or common sense. and get by.
But with the EFB, the guidance of normal fairness or common sense isn’t going to help because it isn’t fair or sensible – and that is the major flaw in King’s comment about using her Law of Common Sense! – it doesn’t make sense!
Q: So how will anyone know what the EFB actually says . . .
A: Refer to the Act – oh, and see Crown v Smith . . . and Crown v The Herald . . . but don’t forget Crown v TV3 . . . and of course see Crown v Shadbolt and Crown v Boscawen . . . and consult your lawyer, so you have someone else to blame and sue.
One thing is for sure: King won’t be running any Government television educational campaign to explain the bill because that would only alert us to what is happening with all the other Government television educational campaigns.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Paying GST caused ‘ confusion’ for the national party last election, lets get rid of that too!
Cant have the poor dears ‘confused’
My vote for word of the year is Confusion
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Is this a suggested headline from the National Party PR unit for the Herald? I heard Stephen Price this morning on NatRad basically telling that ACT party/BRT bagman Boscowan that he was just plain wrong, but Mr. “Angry from Remuera” wouldn’t have a bar of the reasoned view of. like, a trained lawyer – he just ranted on about the sensible sentencing trust being unable to send letters or something.
Personally, if I never hear from that lunatic Garth McVicar ever again I’ll build a shrine to the EFB.
[DPF: Tom is obviously not a fan of Voltaire]
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
One of the legal devices used by a Police State is to have draconian law that can be either arbitrarily enforced or selectively ignored depending on the prejudices of the ruling clique.
The EFB is an example of this type of law.
It is sufficiently vague to allow the government to to turn a blind eye to the activities of its supporters, yet has the teeth to give them a basis to seriously harass those that oppose them.
Considering that the the law makes no distinction between 3rd Parties (except certain privileges accorded to Unions),my question is this:
Vote:Will the EB be treated exactly the same as, Greenpeace, Caritas, Tim Shadbolt, Gay Activists, The Islamic Federation, and Federated Farmers?
and
If not why?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
“Whatever is written in the Act is meaningful, even the Preamble; the parliamentary context is not.”
At least some of the parliamentary context is relevant. As a last port of call the courts can refer to the speech of the Minister to get an understanding of what their intention for the law was.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:37 am
toms said:
Personally, if I never hear from that lunatic Garth McVicar ever again I’ll build a shrine to the EFB.
Thanks toms for exposing the logic and motivation behind the EFB: If you disagree with ‘em, shut ‘em down!
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:43 am
toms said “Personally, if I never hear from that lunatic Garth McVicar ever again I’ll build a shrine to the EFB.”
So you don’t agree with the concept of sensible sentencing then toms – I don’t know why it would concern you, as no-one from Labour ever gets charged, let alone sentenced! Even today we are going to see intervention in the Mallard case, with the prosecutor being asked to explain his “motivation” for bringing the prosecution. Surely, that is unprecedented in criminal law in this country.
However the more sinister aspect of your comment is you saying (indirectly) you’re happy for anyone you disagree with being prevented from expressing an opinion. Obviously you’re working from a different script to James Sleep, because he was so sure last night that free speech wasn’t going to be outlawed!
Today is not a day to gloat. I suggest you spend a few minutes reflecting on just how power-crazed the Clark administration has become – then again, the irony of that would probably be lost on you.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Boscawen is just a front man for BRT.
A classic ploy , used by the EB, we are just individuals , when they are organised by the hidden pressure group.
MMP had Shirtcliffe acting as a front man to oppose it.
Boscawen new trick was to use auomated telephone messaging to drum up supporters to give a appearance of mass support.
BRT , who were behind Shirtcliffe are the ones behind Boscawen as well
[DPF: Ghost, as usual, just lies shamelessly. This is why he posts under an alias. No person posting under their actual name would ever lie as much as he does. ]
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:47 am
“My vote for word of the year is Confusion”
And confused you certainly are GWW
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:50 am
“At least some of the parliamentary context is relevant. As a last port of call the courts can refer to the speech of the Minister to get an understanding of what their intention for the law was”
It is a very last port of call. When Judges have had to go that far, there have been some very critical comments, in a judiclal way, of the law they are being called on to interpret.
It’s a pity the former Acts Interpretaion Act, 1908 has been replaced. Previously, only the text in the actual sections was relevant. Marginal notes, headings and preambles were excluded. Now a rambling preamble, which is the political justification, can confuse everything. Democracy requires certainty of law. With law making of the present quality a parliament is an expensive irrelevancy.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Anyone who ever played a game at school where the other side changed the rules half way to suit themselves knows how much contempt the backers of the EFB deserve.
In the game of politics, the goal is to get elected. The ability to conduct election campaigns is the ability to play the game. The EFB changes the rules governing how people play that game.
So the fact that they unilaterally changed the rules of the game in their favour – ignoring the other team and spectators – makes them absolute scum in any school-kids eyes. Real easy to explain to people that one.
Imagine a game of rugby, Labour & minor supporters (Red) vs National & their supporters (Blue), with the Kiwi public as the spectators. Now the Red team decides to change the rules so that they (only) can forward-pass, and so the Blue team can only advance 120cm before they must relinquish posession of the ball. Ignoring the pleas of the spectators, the ref goes for it (GG signs it into law). Tell you who will get quickly pissed off, and it will be the spectators. Who will pay the price in the end when the spectators take to the field?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 8:54 am
gww = troll. Nothing to add, full of conspiracy theories for which he has no evidence. Go away.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Last chance to e-mail UF and the Greens and encourage them to back down (Labour and Winston First would seem to be a waste of time – although Ron Mark might be worth a go).
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:10 am
ghostwhowalks, you used to show so much creativity. Now you’re just copying and pasting from Labour Party boilerplate. It’s like your heart isn’t in it anymore and you’re just going through the motions.
I propose that the day the EFB is passed be black armband day.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Remember the massive public campaigns against Muldoon’s 3% spending cuts? He tolerated them without anything like the EFB. I never thought it would happen, but Helen Clark is now starting to make Piggy Mulddon look good ….
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Start cutting up your black satin Glenn, unless a miracle happens it is going to be passed today!
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Inventory2: “and the parties supporting the passage of the law should hang their heads in shame.”
I disagree. What these parties are doing is criminal. It is an absolute misuse of power.
This is Fascism as practiced by Fascist States.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:16 am
And here’s another argument for Peter Dunne.
If you vote against the EFB, United will go over 5% in the polls. It will then hold the balance of power in the next Parliament. Vote for the EFB, and the Maori party will hold the balance of power in the next Parliament.
And so they should – at least they have some moral and intellectual honesty.
So what’s it to be Pete? Who deserves the balance of power? You or them?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Good point milo!
Tell Peter: If you won’t do it for your country, for pity sake do it for your party!
Vote:The problem is -of course- Dunne hasn’t the numbers to stop it. But he could save his political future!
December 18th, 2007 at 9:22 am
The EFB sets up an objective test – can this form of words or graphics be reasonably regarded as influencing someone’s vote.
A “cut taxes” advertisement 6 weeks before the budget could not. A “cut taxes” advertisement a week before the election could.
Is there anyone who seriously disputes this?
[DPF: Yes. Depending on the wording the one before the budget most certainly could. What if it says Support parties which vote for lower taxes. But even if one accepts April is okay and November is not. When does okay become not okay? Is it 90 days? Is it 60 days? Is it after Parliament is dissolved? Is it after the budget?
Now one can take guesses at this, and find out in court if you are right. Or one can have a clear 90 day period as we currently have]
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Graeme, the existence of a regulated period establishes a prima facie definition for when advertisements may influence somebody’s vote. If they do not influence the vote, why have the regulated period ?
Thus, I find your argument inconsistent with the extistence of a regulated period from 1 January.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Graeme, further that point, the only way around it is to say that there are in fact two regulated periods. One is defined in the bill. The other is to be decided by the courts.
So people must be careful what they say, as the courts may decide is is within the invisible regulated period or not. To a vote, this represents the potential for capricious interference with their right to free speech. So it’s better to shut up.
What a dog’s breakfast. Great way to have constitutional change, eh?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:29 am
Are you saying Graeme that the EB could spend 1.2 million dollars on a cut tax campaign in April and not risk prosecution?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:39 am
A lawyer I am related to by marriage (no names, no pack drill) says that one firm has already set up an internal unit dedicated to the giving of advice on advertisements, donations, etc. I kidded about there being a market for the setting up of multiple trusts simultaneously – 500 to 1000 at one stroke. There was a brief smile. “Yup, that too”
This is going to be an absolute legal feetrough, unless of course you think that the objective (3(b) in the first version) “promote participation by the public in parliamentary democracy” is going to trump all.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Reg: Yes he is, they can do it easily by getting 10 members to regiater as third parties and each spending $120,000….whoopsy the law didn’t work….
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Bring on a decent court action after Jan 1, I say, and hope the courts have the cojones to tell this pack of leech fucks in the Labour Party what a mess they have made of electoral reform.
PS toms – you have built a shrine to the EFB. it’s called liarbour’s pledge card.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:57 am
The issue of Electoral finance produces a first . . . New Zealand First of course. Their screw-up in trying ‘repay’ the misappropriated tax money through Starship Hospital now supposedly has dozens of charities volunteering to relieve them of their problem, and NZ First says the recipient’s name may have to be with-held [so how the hell will anyone know NZ First really pays out anything - except for NZ First's word, and who would accept that now?]
So instead of a political party secretly receiving charity donations under the EFB, NZ First may be the First political party to give tax money to a charity secretly. How fucked up is that?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 9:59 am
The tragedy is that too few on the left are willing to stand up for their own rights. They are seeing it as a partisan issue rather than a national issue (no pun intended). I think many on the left are going to be unplesantly surprised where the creep of this law takes us.
Vote:To paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemöller, “first they came for the Bretheren, and I did not speak out, for I was not a Bretheren, then they came for the monied interests, and I did not speak out, for I was poor, then they came for me, but the Electoral Finance Act prevented me from speaking out for myself’
December 18th, 2007 at 10:02 am
This has to be the dumbest law ever.
Something you did legally in Jan will be illegal in Mar and then the government will change it’s position during the campaign and it will be legal again in September.
Problem will be the person was convicted in August.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
DPF said:
“Now one can take guesses at this, and find out in court if you are right”.
This is the main reason why the bill is so abhorrent.
Vote:Its legal ambiguity casts a dark shadow over the freedom of speech by disincentivising participation in the election debate!
December 18th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Can anyone tell me when the next election will be? If not, how will I know if I am breaching the objective test threshold?
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:19 am
milo/Reg – Dunne has dug his own grave. He could have killed the Bill at the Select Committee stage where he held the balance of power. He didn’t. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the story, especially as he voted with the government on pretty much every vote in the Committee stage debate. If he was to vote against the Bill today, it would be grandstanding of Winston Peters’ proportions.
Please, voters of Ohariu – Make Dunne History in 2008!
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I would just add on this, that the govt doesn’t usually announce an election till a month or two before the actual date for tactical reasons.
If COG’s assessment is correct and there is an objective test applied, then we might easily face the situation where a judge will say “no election has been called therefore you cannot be influencing votes in the absence of a specific date” and so end up with only a two month or one month regulated period. Which would seem slightly odd given it was supposed to impact the whole electoral year.
Unless of course they backdate any advertising counted till the beginning of the year, meaning all the ads you may have run whihc were not counted now are, which would be even odder…
Would anyone be able to go to the courts to seek a declaratory judgement in advance of any ad campaign? ie Party A wants to run an issues/election campaign but is concerned about breaching the law and wants some certainty. That could be an interesting process if it is allowed.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am
DPF – “Support parties that support cutting taxes” – Almost certainly cover from Jan 1.
Milo – it is not prima facie evidence of that. The deletion of sub-paragraph (iii) of the definition of election advertisement could just as easily suggest that issue ads are fine any time.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:35 am
If the so-called Coalition for Open Government has any integrity (which, it doesn’t – it was set up by the left-wing establishment to be a media supporter for Klark) it would oppose this Bill. The Bill does not deal adequately with the main issue the COG claims to care about, anonymous donations. It distorts the playing field in favour of current MPs and parties already in parliament against challengers. And the third party regime will lead to the election being decided in the courts, a la Florida 2000. Good one Stephen and co.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I heard the audio of Steven Price and John Boscawan on Morning Report.
Hold on to both your wallet and your rights when lawyers say “well it’s a tricky area, it’s really tough and it requires a balancing.” This invariably means that a right you had is now gone.
What was helpful was that Mr Price discloses his various prejudices. He favours the wholesale regulation not only of political competition between candidates but also the extension of regulation to non candidate free speech. He does so because cunning politicians and advertising executives will use non candidate speech to avoid the regulation of candidate speech.
And thus he misses the entire lesion of recent New Zealand history. Adding complexity via regulation only empowers the wealthy and those with vested interests and specialist knowledge. Regulation also stifles innovation. The two old party regulation of political broadcasting in New Zealand has virtually killed the broadcast medium as a vehicle for political advocacy. Except for National’s “thank-you very much ads last time – our political advertising is terrible.
The empowerment of those with specialist knowledge is evidenced by Mr Price himself deploying the “are you a lawyer” question against Boscawen. Freedom of political speech by non candidates is now a matter of specialist legal knowledge – the new empowered class are lawyers – Mr Price has an interesting website which is both informational and touts for work – I am sure he will provide advice on electoral law.
His second prejudice is that advertising buys votes – we know this because people selling things spend millions to advertise and they wouldn’t do so unless it was effective. Thus advertising fridges equals fridges sold. Even if this were true (and its not) we don’t generally limit the freedom to advertise – we favour competition and freedom and consumer choice. Even if political advertising brought votes (and there is no evidence for this in New Zealand and little for it elsewhere) so long as there is free entry into the political market place and limited regulation of the players – why should the State be expending its powers and regulating it. After all no voter is forced to agree with the political advertiser in fact they don’t have to buy at all.
His third prejudice is that up to 12k limit/intention prior to a forced choice between registrations or silence under threat of prosecution is entirely reasonable. He brings no specialist knowledge on political campaigning and the costs associated with this – it’s just an intuitive feeling that 12k seems like a lot of money to him. Of course the odd thing about freedom is that one should be free to be unreasonable – it makes for a more lively and interesting society.
Closely associated with the ’12k/intention plus a thicket of rules is reasonable’ is the notion that the expansion of State power in this area is synonymous with the interests of the ordinary person who is still free to write letters to the editor and go on protests etc. But again the State is judging what is reasonable political advocacy and what is not.
And what specialist knowledge to lawyers and judges bring to this assessment they have no training in this area whatsoever. What uncontested expertise can be brought to a calculation of whether something done is sufficiently close to an election to influence as opposed to something else done which is sufficiently far away so as to not influence an election – and using Mr Price’s logic why would a rational actor do this anyway.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
It would be nice if the COG believed in a equal electoral process and not one that just benefitted Labour.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Chris – great comment. Thanks!
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Considering Steven Price said on 3 news that the LMVD Crazy Car advertising wont break the EFB, then in the same interview said it might – I wont take his word on how grand the EFB is.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Woops, meant the SIT ads
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 11:01 am
I heard that lying ^@% on the radio this morning. He’s obviously taken a leaf from Sue Bradford’s book. Say something is what it’s not, in order to
a) suppress opposition from those that can’t be bothered checking if you’re lying through your teeth or not
b) delay long enough to get the law through.
Hearing him speak about the EFB “levelling the playing field” just about made me gag.
It’s filthy and it stinks. Mr Price, history will judge you. I hope you don’t believe in an afterlife.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
For God sake dont tell the Socialists but one little trick will be to lay a complaint with the EC for every piece that the Socialists put out. Not only will it tie the EC up in knots but it will tie Socialist HQ up in knots having to respond to and defend the complaint.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
All right, I’ll bite.
adc: would you be kind enough to identify any lie that I told, or else stop calling me a liar?
george: how pleased would “Klark” have been with COG’s frequent criticisms of the process Labour followed with this bill; our publicly expressed concerns that the original form of the bill went too far in suppressing speech and not far enough in making donations more transparent; and our criticisms that the new anonymous donations regime isn’t tight enough?
Bevan: this law doesn’t just benefit Labour. It forces transparency on the donations of all the parties. It restricts the spending of high-spending third-parties seeking to influence the election, pro or anti Labour. As for my star turn on TV3, you might have noted that what I said was that if the SIT ad was published very close to the election, the courts might well then consider it can be reasonably regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote one way or another in the upcoming election. The same ad published much further out from the election, might well not get caught.
Chris Diack: I’m not sure where you get the idea that I favour “wholesale regulation… of political competition between candidates”. Are you saying that I favour the current system, plus more transparency on donations? Well, guilty as charged. I wouldn’t call it “wholesale regulation” though.
As for third parties, I support reasonable and tightly tailored restrictions to support democracy by providing greater transparency about who’s behind such campaigns, and reasonable restrictions on the ability of people with a lot of money to use it to try to swing an election in a way that the rest of us can’t. Yep, that involves regulating speech, and especially political speech, so the restrictions need to be looked at very closely indeed.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether the restrictions are too tight (or about whether they’re necessary at all).
On reflection, I think it was arrogant of me to ask whether John Boscowan was a lawyer. But I was amazed at the interpretation of the bill he was advancing. I still don’t understand where he’s coming from on that. I could also have pointed out that one of his earlier ads contained false information about how money raised passing around a bucket would need to forked over to the Crown. Wrong.
Will regulation itself benefit the rich and lead to a swarm of lawsuits? It seems a fair argument. But for me the point is that most people will not be affected at all by this bill. Let me ask again: how many people want to spend more than $12,000 convincing someone to vote one way or another? How many people want to spend more than $120,000? The vast majority of people don’t have to worry about this bill, or getting legal opinions, or getting prosecuted, because they won’t come anywhere near those thresholds. It’s people like you guys who are claiming (wrongly, I think) that this bill requires specialist knowledge for ordinary people. Message to ordinary people from lawyer: unless you spend more than $12,000 this bill barely affects you at all.
Incidentally, I specialise in media law, not election law. I’ve taken a close interest in this bill, but I’m not an expert at election law generally, or criminal law. I’d be surprised if anyone wants me to do any work on election issues next year, but hey, thanks for suggesting that it was my motivation for trying to suggest that this bill is an improvement on the current system.
Advertising fridges equals fridges sold? Not quite. My point is that advertisers think their messages have impact, and I don’t think advertisers as an industry are stupid. So I give their beliefs some credence. I think there’s evidence that dog whistle messages repeatedly aimed at swing voters can shift opinion. That’s the gospel according to Aussie election meisters Crosby Textor, who’ve been pretty successful with it.
And it’s not true that we don’t generally limit advertising in NZ. There is a wealth of rules and regulations affecting advertisers, from passing off laws and the Fair Trading Act to the advertising codes administered by the Advertising Standards Authority, which include rules about advocacy advertising.
As for the 12k limit: well, I’m happy to listen to your expertise on how many people are going to be affected by it. I’ve been asking the question. None of the bill’s opponents have been saying. I think Winston Peters suggested that about 50 people in the last election might have hit $12,000, though perhaps I misheard him, or perhaps he was misinformed.
The state isn’t really determining what is “reasonable advocacy”. It’s really determining how much is reasonable for any one person to be able to spend. The state’s role under the key part of this bill is really limited to asking “will readers think this is telling them how to vote?”. They’ll draw on expert evidenced if they need to.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Steven Price said: Bevan: this law doesn’t just benefit Labour. It forces transparency on the donations of all the parties.
Bullsh$&. If that was the case then all donations would be transparent, funny how the limit imposed is slightly more than Labour has been generating over the years.
It restricts the spending of high-spending third-parties seeking to influence the election, pro or anti Labour.
Like Greenpeace, Sensible Sentencing, etc. Why should citizens be restricted from organising together under a banner, such as greenpeace or SST and be restricted in how mush they can spend? The law blatantly protects the incumbants.
As for my star turn on TV3, you might have noted that what I said was that if the SIT ad was published very close to the election, the courts might well then consider it can be reasonably regarded as encouraging or persuading voters to vote one way or another in the upcoming election. The same ad published much further out from the election, might well not get caught.
So whats the need for a regulatory period starting on the 1st of January then? If it is illegal three weeks out from an election, why is it not illegal on the 2nd of January? Or when you say “further out from an election” do you mean before the 1st of Jan? And quite frankly, Id rather not have the courts decide what is valid or not, that would be a complete waste of resources! The law should be clear enough that the courts are only needed for prosecution, not to test the bloody law!
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Steven:
Klark would not have been pleased with your criticisms – but you had no choice but to criticise the first draft of the bill. No sane person could have supported such a bill (and no one but a lawyer looking forward to the fees from “Florida” could support the revised version).
But the left established COG just before Labour introduced the bill because you didn’t expect it to be so extreme, and Labour and you wanted someone to support it. That was the whole secret agenda behind COG.
Vote:December 18th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Steven Price:
Thanks for your posting – and I am interested in your website.
You misquote me.
What I actually said was “He [Price] favours the wholesale regulation not only of political competition between candidates but also the extension of regulation to non candidate free speech. He does so because cunning politicians and advertising executives will use non candidate speech to avoid the regulation of candidate speech”
This is a fair summation of your position.
So what is the evidence of the mischief you are trying to address? And is this legislation a proportionate response to the risks of that mischief? It cannot be the Exclusive Brethren for they sought advice from electoral authorities to comply with the law. They simply did what it is and has been lawful to do for ever in New Zealand. The proportionate response to the risk might simply be to dramatically increase the party spending caps on the basis that parties will always want to spend the money themselves rather than see it spent by non candidate actors.
You keep asserting that money spent on advertising can sway elections and this gives power to rich people a power that ordinary people (like you) don’t have. Again where is the evidence of this proposition for it underpins your public policy proposition in this area? Why would someone’s advertising spend make me any more likely to vote as they suggest – I may think their public policy ideas are rubbish – the more I hear them. Using pejorative phrases like “dog whistling” disclose your true view of voters: that they are sheep – they cannot handle the freedom of political expression as exercised by those who have a view about public policy and want others to consider it.
In the end bad ideas won’t fly doesn’t matter how much is spent advocating them. The best check against bad ideas taking hold is freedom not rules on how much can be said by particular classes of individuals and groups. Any assertion that some ideas are equal and that the expression of political ideas needs to be balanced is simply a nonsense – the law cannot achieve this its hopeless overreach.
In the end people do all sorts of crazy things in political advocacy and advertising and only some of it is in anyway affective. The truth is that most campaign activity including political advertising only makes a difference on the margins. Labour’s pledge card last time was done out of habit because it was once novel and was associated in the minds of those doing it with previous success.
You keep asserting that EFB regulatory regime will not affect the vast majority of (ordinary citizens) so therefore its ok. With respect, that isn’t the point. If I am barmy enough to spend my money on advocating my ideas so be it – it’s called freedom. Given that your fundamental premise money = votes brought is unsound, it therefore follows that these is rational for the state to regulate non candidate free speech is gone or at best based on a mere assertion or prejudice that cannot actually be tested.
You claim that because those who advertise think what they are doing is affective then this is reason enough to regulate. It may turn out that in an objective measure of what influences voters they turn out to be more hardy souls that you give them credit for. In fact the more the are exposed to political advertising the more critical consumers they become.
I stand by my original assertion regarding the money = votes rationale for regulating: we do not limit the amount of advertising done on fridges because we think a fridge company will sell too many fridges. I did not say there was no regulation. Nor I have I claimed that non candidate free speech isn’t governed by the general laws of NZ in particular defamation for example. But even in the general law (as you full well know) the law was moving towards greater freedom of political expression with the qualified privilege for political expression. This EFB is therefore out of step with the development of the common law.
Regarding your claim of expertise in media law and not electoral law – don’t sell yourself short – you are as much an expert on electoral law is as anyone else in the legal profession.
Vote:December 19th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I’m prepared to donate $10,000 towards legal fees to anyone who can bring a successful prosecution under the Electoral Finance Act against David Farrar and/or any National Party MP or the National Party, The Sensible Sentencing Trust, John Boscowan, The Business Round Table or any other Right-wing individual or group who wish to use vast sums of money to attemp to buy the 2008 election.
Vote: