You Paid For It
I’m happy to pre-announce the formation of a new resource for election year – the You Paid For It blog.
It will be officially launched on 1 January 2008 to coincide with the start of the soon to be regulated election period.
The idea behind the blog is that we will be encouraging everyone to look out for anything they get sent which has the parliamentary crest on it. If you see the crest, it means you paid for it. And we want people to upload, or e-mail or even post in all the material they come across – pamphlets, newsletters, advertisements, pens, banners. And this applies to all parties and all MPs.
We also will welcome any background details to the scans – how you got it, where it was published, estimated no of copies.
This material may become invaluable – both for public scrutiny of taxpayer funded advertising, but also for any electoral petitions or police prosecutions.
You see the Government has not succeeded in getting a total exemption for parliamentary expenditure under the Electoral Finance Bill. As they are being forced to clarify Clause 81(2)(g) it means that even if it approved by the Parliamentary Service, it still will have an independent test under the Electoral Act of does it encourage or persuade people to support or not support a party or candidate or type of party or candidate.
Now combined with the extension of the regulated period to all of election year, it means that anything an MP spends on publicity next year *may* be able to be counted as party or candidate expenditure under the Act, even if approved by the Parliamentary Service. It will have to be seen as encouraging or persuading people to vote, but that is not always clear cut as we saw with the pledge card.
So MPs had better be very careful with spending their $65,000 parliamentary budget. If $5,000 of that $65,000 they spend ends up classified as election advertising, and they have spent $16,000 directly on the campaign, then bang they have overspent and they are out of Parliament.
Every letter, every advert, every newsletter will be scrutinised for electioneering. There could be multiple election petitions to get rulings on what is or is not an election advertisement and does it qualify for the parliamentary purposes exemption. Where onece you could avoid this uncertainity by just not spending any of your parliamentary budget on advertising in the last 90 days, now you will have to second guess all your expenditure all year long.
And MPs should also remember the advice of the Solictor-General which is just having part of a publication as electioneering means the whole thing qualifies. So your electorate newsletter might be 95% okay, but just one paragraph can turn it into an election advertisement, and bang there goes your seat.
The sensible thing is to stay with the status quo – a 90 day regulated period where one stops spending your parliamentary budget on advertising and the cap kicks in from the same spot. It allowed risk to be minimised. But by extending the regulated period to the whole year, it means everything published by you next year will be open to electoral challenge. And this new website is designed to record evidence of such taxpayer funded advertising so that anyone who does wish to do electoral challenges, or complaints to the electoral authorities and/or the Police will have the source material to do so.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Can you confirm if this will be a political resource for the national party?
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Oh I like it! I’m in!
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
It will be a political source for any party, fool.
If you break the rules they will ping you.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
BeShakey: what does “political resource” mean? Am I supposed to be reading between the lines somehow – to use Tane’s terms is this some sort of sophisticated dog whistle?
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
What if people simply post every piece of advertising, news letters, pledge cards etc back to Helen. One bit at a time.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
What are you on about BeSharkey – it will be a public resource for everyone to use.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I’m in – and I could start already with the “Rongotai News”…
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
BeShakey by name,, BeShakey by nature.
Some people just make it too easy.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Will NZ First’s unpaid account from the last election be counted towards their expenditure for the next one if not repaid before Jan 08?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“This material may become invaluable – both for public scrutiny of taxpayer funded advertising, but also for any electoral petitions or police prosecutions.”
Given Kiwiblogs ties to the National party and the obvious benefits to them if they could claim, particularly prior to the election, that Labour had broken a law it changed, I’m simply wondering if this resource will be used by the Nats “for electoral petitions or police prosecutions”. Of course there is nothing illegal or otherwise wrong if that was the case. It was simply a question to try and get a clear idea of what the purpose was. Seems transparency is a raw nerve with some.
[DPF: This may help things. As far as I know - no one in National knows about this. I had the idea and asked Cameron to help with the site. No National MP or staffer or official has had input into this (yes I know I am a temp contractor but am almost finished and is in an area unrelated to this).
Furthermore I suspect there could be several National MPs not overly happy that material they send out might end up on this site.]
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Great idea – I’m in!
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:12 pm
BeShakey, your violin needs tuning.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
for fucks sake, it’s obvious beshaky is asking who paid for the website
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
This is one of those interesting areas where I think the EFB and it’s accompanying appropriations bill will be an “own goal” for Labour.
Sure, they’ve loosened the purse strings so they can raid the parliamentary budgets to prop up their (morally & financially) bankrupt parties. And Helen might feel chuffed that she’s engineered it so that’s legal this time.
But the public haven’t changed their attitude to cynical pollies spending taxpayers money on things that “the law of common sense” (TM) says are electioneering. And so every time Labour and its mates produce some election material the main focus will be on who paid for it, not what it says.
Labour’s election messages are going to lost in the cross-fire about how much of my taxes paid for the red ink.
As I’ve said several times before … Tane, roger nome et al … can’t you see that these initiatives are going to hurt Labour, not help them. Methinks you’re cheerleading Helen to election defeat when perhaps the wiser thing would be to encourage her to turn over a new leaf and act contrite. (Really not sure she has that in her …)
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“for fucks sake, it’s obvious beshaky is asking who paid for the website”
God forbid they used there own money!
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Can we assume David that if National becomes the government next year, that you will continue to run this site. In the interest of better government of course and in the interests of fair play.
Remember the old saying. WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND.
[DPF: The site runs for the the regulated election period. I quite like the idea of keeping it going for future elections though]
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Cameron has I presume paid for it. I’ll have to buy him some beers in exchange I suspect.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Nothing like a beer and a yarn eh John Dalley ? OK coral sounds good
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I’d be fairly confident the big metro newspapers will be gearing up to do something like this in their election 2008 coverage. Wouldn’t be too hard to have a small panel in the paper each day totalling up how much each party has spent to date from the parliamentary services budget.
The main hurdle will be getting accurate & timely info. OIA requests will give you the accurate numbers, but there’ll be a bit of a time lag.
[Parl Serv is exempt from the OIA]
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“I’d be fairly confident the big metro newspapers will be gearing up to do something like this in their election 2008 coverage”.
Actually it’s more likey that the left wing media will have a daily column entitled: “Bretheran Watch” where they moniter how much of their own money the EB is spending.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Thanks DPF, that answers my question.
I still think it is interesting that a number of people here seemed particularly offended by the idea of getting a better idea of the background to this idea. For some reason openess and honesty are bad things when it means you have to answer questions.
In response to a couple of other points made by people. This will only be an ‘own goal’ for Labour if you think the EFB SHOULD have been about favouring them. If you think the bill disadvantages Labour then you should be applauding them for putting through legislation that increases the transparency of the campaign, at Labours expense (not theirs alone of course). Somehow I can’t see that happening though.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
“Can we assume David that if National becomes the government next year, that you will continue to run this site.”
You can probably assume that if National becomes government they will change the law so the site isnt needed. You know, act with integrity and all that.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Remember the old saying. WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND.
If thats the case then the Labour Party is well, truely and deservedly screwed!
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
You can probably assume that if National becomes government they will change the law so the site isnt needed. You know, act with integrity and all that.
Way to kick em in the nads Kimble! Ouch.
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“should be applauding them for putting through legislation that increases the transparency of the campaign”
milkshakes , I mean beshakey rather than risking a earthquake type reaction can I ask if you cut and paste that propaganda bullshit from a communist manifesto ?
December 3rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Don’t worry D4J I wasn’t suggesting that you do that. Just that there is some inconsistency among the views of various people. That isn’t a problem in itself, just that it makes it harder to have an anti-Labour love in. Although D4J it is interesting that you think anyone who disagrees with you is a communist. You checked under the bed lately?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
BeShakey, the reason I think the EFB & Appropriations Bill will be “own goals” is that it’s Labour setting up a legal framework for something the general public clearly don’t want. Specifically … the broad public do not think political parties should be able to tap public money for their electioneering.
So … Helen can now raid Parliamentary Services budgets for newsletters, flyers, pledge cards etc etc … but in 2008 the media & commentators will be watching to see what has the parliamentary crest on it and they’ll be making a story out of it. Witness this “You paid for it” blog.
The problem for Labour is they may well spend the entire campaign on the backfoot responding to these sort of stories rather than telling us about all the good things they think they’re going to do.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I would like to nominate the Labour Party’s new website for the You Paid For It blog. It has been completely re-designed. Estimate of costs: $51,000. That’s a thousand dollars more than the Standard estimated the National Party spent on the John Key video.
Labour’s new website has no new policy on it. All of the policy documents are from 2005. Even the Labour Party’s much-heralded sustainability message is merely a link to a document at Yale University.
And we know that we’ve paid for it, because it has the Parliamentary crest on it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
I think ALL instances should be monitored. If we wish to change the government, we must make sure that nobody we support is as guilty.
We cannot fulminate against Labour iniquity yet tolerate the same on our side. Witness how some of Hugo Chavez supporters of a further left persuasion are now deserting him.
If National and it’s allies are to govern for several terms then we need to make sure they behave with integrity.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Estimate of costs: $51,000.
Where did this estimate come from, IP?
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Ironically, Andrew, the same person the Standard uses to estimate the costs of John Key’s video.
But seriously. Websites like that don’t come cheap. Labour’s devoted a large amount of our money promoting itself on its new website.
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Jeeeesus, at least we know that Labour will be using “Super model” Helen for the election…..so much for truth and honesty in politics.
Since the left are into disclosure for thee but not for me I will post a disclosure statement on You Paid For it
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
How come the other parties have to pay for their own websites?
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Bwakile:
Labour’s clearly getting in early to put the expenditure of its website redesign and recreation into December 2007, to avoid it potentially counting as an election expense for the election year under the Electoral Finance Bill. They’re getting the taxpayer to foot the bill now so they can then blow a whole lot more of taxpayers’ money on the campaign next year.
Yes indeed, folks. This is how cynical they are.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
http://youpaidforit.co.nz/?q=image/tid/6
If someone would like to make a full web screen pic, go for it!
I’m amazed that Labour is having the taxpayer fund the party’s website.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Big Bruv is hereby banned from You Paid for It for posting nonsense. This ban can be lifted following a suitable and sincere public apology. Dickhead.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Did the tax payer fund the National Party website? Labor is broke, don’t you know. It has cabinet ministers defaming the Insurance Council now. It has NO MONEY so it has to steal ours. Next thing you know Mike Williams salary will have a parliamentary crest attached to his pay slip.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Where are the all the lefty lickspittles defending more public money being siphoned off so they can keep the twisted ones in power ? No wonder the kids are depressed at the low down gummint mental web site, while the insane pollies are hell bent on the Christmas rush legislation bonanza.Powder Puff Political Turkeys the whole f##king lot of them !!
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Does it ever stop David? I have long been a reader and contributor to your blog because I believed it offered an alternative to mainstream media coverage of politics and gave all citizens a chance to contribute to debate free of the the veto of the editor. I am however fast becoming disabused of this notion.
Instead of remaining a bastion of free speech and ideals, your site seems instead to have moved toward becoming a vesel of propaganda for the masters that you serve. The blog has become a personification of the maxim that ‘they who pay the piper call the tune’.
You are intelligent enough to know that a system that allows unfettered input by wealthy interests promulgates a society run by the interests of the ‘haves’, surely at the expense of the ‘have nots’. Do we really want our political process to mirror that of the United States? That is the way we are heding with your violent opposition to the EFB, a bill that places all parties on an even keel with respect to advertising and political promotion.
The most amusing part of all is that those who shout the loudest against unions and in favour of individual rights are the first to take to the streets in collective action to promote their mutual interests.
Oxymoron defined.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Brenden – I have never argued against limits on political party and third party expenditure.
In fact what I hope to achieve with this new project is to make sure the rules apply to all parties, and that parties don’t get away with breaking those limits which you support.
And I doubt even you Brenden think the EFB is about having an even keel. A most uneven keel.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:39 pm
It is somewhat ironic that the movement espousing the end of free speech in fact personifies the right to the same in our wonderful nation.
As a leader of a protest movement perhaps you will take it easier on me in future for my similar role!
As we appear to be in symbiosis perhaps we should break bread over a beer sometime.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Bread and beer is always a fine thing. Just let me know if you are in Wellington or I’ll let you know when next up North.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
You have my email address – send me your cell no and I will be in touch.
Howver for the avoidance of doubt I am a Voltarian. I disagree with what you see say but I will always defend your right to say it!
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:25 pm
awesome idea.. kudos to you both
December 4th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Great stuff. Gummint is only possible with the consent of the gummed…
December 4th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I was hose off the other day to hear my damn fool MP telling me about Rate Rebates. I found out a long time ago I wasn’t elligible. Pete Hodgson URRGH!!