Moore calls for Electoral Finance Act repeal
Former Labour Party Prime Minister Mike Moore calls for the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act – some extracts:
Dissent is the lifeblood and oxygen of progressive politics. It always has been.
We social democrats trace our history of dissent back through the centuries as we wrung concessions out of the powerful and privileged.
Years after I was elected to Parliament, I read an interview with my mother who told the story of delivering leaflets supporting the workers at night with me in a pram covered with illegal leaflets. As a boy, I delivered ‘No Maoris, No Tour’ leaflets. More recently we saw splendid dissent during the anti-Vietnam War, anti-nuclear and the anti-apartheid struggle. One current minister was ejected physically from the parliamentary gallery for protesting against the extension of the powers of the Security Intelligence Service.
This short history of democratic Labour and dissent is to remind people of Labour’s traditions. Why and how we stand on the shoulders of others in our historic commitment to human rights; freedom at home and abroad.
Why then this historic blunder of the Electoral Finance Act, which contradicts this fine tradition?
Is it all a cock-up or a conspiracy that we have enacted such a repressive, unworkable, flawed law to cover election year activists?
Why should you have to register with the state if you want to oppose or support a political party, or promote public policy? Lawyers have suggested that cartoonists who seek to persuade readers could be covered, even theatre.
Even MPs who voted for the legislation can’t work out how to spend their own electorate allowances.
People are going to test this law, perhaps get a terminally-ill person in a hospice to be an agent. A heroic defence was suggested, that is the law of common sense. Unique in world jurisprudence – tell that to the judge or electoral commissioner who closed down an anti-Government webpage. The blogger wouldn’t give his address because he lived at home and might upset mom. Is this silly or sinister? Both.
My plea to the party I love is to just repeal the act. Accept it’s wrong in substance and principle before it hurts us further and does the exact opposite of what’s intended by encouraging big money to circumvent this law. J’Accuse.
I expect the usual suspects will attack Mike Moore, rather than listen to his message.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:17 am
How to stop big money buying elections?
Why, it’s simple. Shut down a $50 website.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am
How to stop big money buying elections?
Make sure only those who can afford competent legal advice can voice opinions.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:22 am
You guys are missing the point. This is a beltway issue fanned by the VRWC, of which Farrar is chief organiser. How they bought Mike Moore off isn’t certain, perhaps he was corrupted by big money during his tenure at the WTO.
[DPF: I'm only Assistant Deputy Chief Organiser for Asia-Pacific. Karl Rove remains our global chief]
January 31st, 2008 at 10:29 am
One of the biggest strengths of the liberal democratic capitalist West in the Cold War was not its spending power, or high tech military hardware or advanced nuclear missile delivery systems- it was its ability to allow dissent, criticism and open debate, which over time absorbed that dissent and made it part of the establishment. The establishment in other words continually renewed itself based on dissent and criticism. As an example, black Civil rights was once very anti-establishment and viewed as dissent. Today in the US they have an official Martin Luther King day and the history of the black civil rights struggle is included in the school curriculum.
To restrain or limit open debate, to limit the populations exposure to new ideas and perspectives because one fears that if someone spends enough money people will be willing to accept any point of view is a disservice to the intelligence of the population as a whole and strikes a terrible blow at the heart of the liberal democratic system. Considering the economic rise of authoritarian style capitalism with no civil or political rights in China and the dangers of Islamo-facism elsewhere , now is when we could least afford to do this.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am
This is a most interesting line – Moore says “My plea to the party I love is to just repeal the act.”
To have the need to come out constantly attacking Labour must hurt him. (of course I am overjoyed their exleader and Prime Minister does attack them).
Will Mike Moore closer to the election say to the people “for the good of the country and democracy we must get rid of Helen Clark and this Labour Government” I think he will, and in fact this is exactly what he is saying now.
Quite simply there has not been a shred of good news for Labour for several months. I am frankly surpirised that they remain as high in the polls as they are.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:51 am
Paul, you are missing the point.
As Mike Moore says, this act gives legal powers to suppress, limit and control dissent. Not violent dissent, not armed rebellion, but the simple act of voicing dissent!
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
January 31st, 2008 at 11:05 am
“Accept it’s wrong in substance and principle”
Hahhahahahahahahahaahah… Mike, your buddies have spent half a year and millions of words propagandising the view that the bill is not wrong. Like a pack of slavering wolves, they’ve viciously attacked those who have agreed with your stance. Even set up blogs especially to smear and incite hatred against those opposed to the bill.
How can they now possibly go back on all of this and state they were wrong???
They can’t. ..and they shouldn’t. Know why? Because this bill epitomizes today’s Labour Party. A gang of jack booted anti freedom of expression commie thugs taking this country to hell in a handcart. The bill is a true and accurate representation of the mindset of those who control this country.
Its woken the public to who they have elected. NZ citizens have finally realized the true nature of the totalitarian socialist beast. Klark and her acolytes, driven by their fanatical hatred of the EBs, has overstepped the Gramascian mark, and gone too far too quickly.
Now, in the words of Carole King, its too late baby, its too late. You can’t fake it and you can’t make it, so you might as well take what’s coming to you, and go down the tube like you damn well deserve. What a relief and a cause for celebration its going to be to see such a corrupt cronyist pack of totalitarian thugs out on their collective arses.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Big on rhetoric, short on substance. So in sum we have, guy who is known to personally detest leader of party, says he doesn’t like legislation made by that said party….. In other breaking news, coalition for free speech makes hyperbolic billboard that’s subsequently rubbished by political commentators!
January 31st, 2008 at 11:13 am
“Mike Moore off isn’t certain, perhaps he was corrupted by big money during his tenure at the WTO.”
Outrageous. PaulL, where are the facts? Can you make that allegation without any proof?
What if I say that perhaps Paul is a Labour Party apparatchik, who charges two dollars for every posting in kiwiblog. Socialist money, of course.
Would that be fair, PaulL?
January 31st, 2008 at 11:14 am
Manolo, I think its satire. Isn’t it????
[DPF: I am sure it is]
January 31st, 2008 at 11:16 am
08 is going to be such a good year !!
January 31st, 2008 at 11:28 am
Roger nome, If you really are a reader, turn your computor off and read world History from about WW1 to the present.
Only in this way can you see the road that we are bring led down.
If you cannot see the direction of travel then you “define” yourself and your opinion will be judged accordingly.
If you claim you have read widely then you are a liar.
No one with a knowledge base uses Wikipedia as a reference unless the enquiry is in a totally unknown area of personal opinion.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:32 am
She has ruled the Labour Party with an iron fist tolerating no ideas except her own. Now she wants to write the same sort of control on a larger stage with the NZ public because she just cannot stand people criticising her. The though of those bill boards going up all over Auckland was too much for her sensitivities. So she finds a way to outlaw them. And her helpers like Glenda Fryer (is there a person more ugly than her) attempted to have a go in Auckland with the City Council. They have gone and so will Helen Clark.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Its a great message – thanks Mike. But what I can’t understand is his sticking to the party he “loves”. Honestly! And the second sentence yet again falsly attibuting all social progress to the left and thereby defend their infencible place on the moral high ground is enough to make one spew. Do we have to repeat the list:
Freed the slaves – Republicans
Normalised relations with China – Republicans
Ended Vietnam war – Republicans
Dropped atomic bombs – Democrats
Escalated vietnam war – Democrats
Come on Mike, your over 30!
January 31st, 2008 at 11:52 am
Whilst I would agree with much of what Moore has to say in this piece, I cannot help but think of him as nothing more than a ‘shit stirrer’. While he reminds us of his affinity with Labour, he most certainly has not forgotten the fact that Clark ousted him as Leader and then enjoyed over eight years as a successful PM.
His whole demeanour to me is shaded less with the Labour-red and more with an envious-green.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:54 am
All of this is designed to push Helen into a corner.
She will have to come out swinging or climb out the back window.
I suspect it will be the latter and Goff will be leader by July
January 31st, 2008 at 11:59 am
bwakile – you obviously have no political intuition at all. Love her or hate her, Clark is the ONLY MP in Labour capable of winning 2008. Both her party, Caucus and Cabinet know this. For Goff, its better to be a Minister in Cabinet than Leader of the Opposition.
There is a quote about politics – “Those whose voices are heard the most are those who know the least”. Enough with the leader speculation, its irrelevent to the political climate as much as it is to this thread.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
“turn your computor off and read world History from about WW1 to the present.”
I’ve read plenty on that subject by the way – kind of happens when you study international relations at Uni. Frankly I’m gobsmaked that you’ve fallen into the whole Labour = Nazis camp, which is usually associated with a grouping of NZ blog commentators known as “the right”.
“No one with a knowledge base uses Wikipedia as a reference unless the enquiry is in a totally unknown area of personal opinion.”
A wiki article, like any secondary research is only as good as its sources. Mind you, I wouldn’t use it in my academic research, but having said that, if the references look credible, and the article provides links to those sources so the claims can be checked, I’m fine with using it in a blog debate. You presumably have a problem with this approach to participating in blog discussions. Why?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Sorry Hoolian I dont agree with you but as I don’t gamble I won’t offer odds.
Under Helen, Labour are on the ropes and if I was a labour Minister (Heaven forbid) I would rather lose this election but at least be in a fresh position to move forward than lose and allow the country to witness the inevitable bloodbath next year. The Labour backbenchers are toast anyway.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
There are a lot of new posters in recent times. Apparently people who cannot recognise sarcasm. I thought that was a failing confined to the left, turns out some on the right miss it too. I’ll make it more obvious next time.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:20 pm
David Baigent:
oh – and if you really want some good WW1-present history reading you might try reading “body of secrets” by James Bamford. It’s a kind of semi-official history of the US’s National Security Agency’s intelligence operations since WW1. Puts a whole new spin on Vietnam especially (the US deliberately provoked the attack which began that war).
Here’s a good detailed review of it – http://archive.salon.com/books/review/2001/04/25/nsa/index.html
January 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
roger: Frankly I’m gobsmaked that you’ve fallen into the whole Labour = Nazis camp
Actually … that was you. David made no such comparison. You just did. He only suggested that you read recent world history. Are you now a member of the “Kiwiblog right”?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Pascal – pull your jaw up … stop drooling.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Big on rhetoric, short on substance.
Citing over 20 historical references of the positive benefits of dissent, Mike Moore presents a strong case for greater freedom of campaigning.
Rogernome is completely unable to challenge this so dismisses it as “rhetoric” and attacks the messenger.
So in sum we have, guy who is known to personally detest leader of party, says he doesn’t like legislation made by that said party…
Then tries to bait and switch in bold.
.. In other breaking news, coalition for free speech makes hyperbolic billboard that’s subsequently rubbished by political commentators!
I used to be under the impression that roger could form factual counter arguments, unfortunately this no longer appears to be the case.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Frankly I’m gobsmaked that you’ve fallen into the whole Labour = Nazis camp
Actually … that was you. David made no such comparison”
He did however put giant billboards up comparing Helen Clark to Robert Mugabe.
Anyway M Moore attacks government, there’s a shocker.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Roger: Pascal – pull your jaw up … stop drooling.
So you respond to corrections on your unfounded accusations with insults. Yup, you definately are a member of what I/S calls the “Kiwiblog right”
Way to show some class there Roger.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
sonic: He did however put giant billboards up comparing Helen Clark to Robert Mugabe.
Oh noes! Offensive political satire leveled at an authoritarian government! He probably kills bunnies too and doesn’t wash his hands after he pees. Oh – the inhumanity!
L2satire imo.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Didnt realise you were also a fan of LOL cats Pascal
January 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Anyway M Moore attacks government, there’s a shocker.
M Moore attacks the government using factual references and a real argument in support of his case.
Sonic defends the government without any of those, there is a shocker.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:39 pm
that such an apologist/trout/lackey of the americans..(c.f. time at wherever-it-was..)
where he was ‘their man’ in pushing their anti-democratic/exploitive policies/wishes..
moore was ‘americas’ bitch’..
that he now dares to preach about anything at all..is a source of puzzlement to many..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
sonic: Didnt realise you were also a fan of LOL cats Pascal
Inevitable, isn’t it? But no, too many hours logged in World of Warcraft unfortunately.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
philu
Have another suck on the bong dear boy – you clearly dont know Mike Moore and prefer to sink into the safety of your Green anti-globalisation rhetoric. Why don’t you address the things Moore says rather than take cheap dak fuelled shots which in no way diminish his message.
Can we have someone from the left who will actually analyse the substance of what Moore says, point out anywhere factually where he is wrong and save us the cheap personal attacks – or is that the line again from H2 and her lieutenants.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Actually Moore makes one good point…
“During the 1951 waterfront dispute, a National Government used wartime legislation, still on the books, to censor the media and make it an offence to assist those declared by law to be strikers.”
Yet NZ didn’t slide into a Nazi dictatorship, even though these acts by the National Party were far more “Nazi” in nature than anything that has or will happen as a result of the EFA. The media will not be anything like “censored”. Anyone who claims they will be doesn’t understand the Act, particularly its stated goals.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“philu
Have another suck on the bong dear boy”
That’s getting a wee bit tired KIA. -10 points for creativity.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
oh BTW pascal if David wasn’t refering to the Nazi’s what do you think he was talking about?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
roger nome: the media will not be anything like “censored”.
Was anyone saying that, Moore included? No, most of this and of his piece appears to be focussed on the restrictions this places on activists. Were you just looking for an opportunity to make Nazi comparisons after your earlier blunder?
I think the time has come to invoke Godwin. Sorry Roger, but for your repeated invocations and Nazi comparisons you have just lost this debate.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Stil doesn’t make it right now or then.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Roger Nome: oh BTW pascal if David wasn’t refering to the Nazi’s what do you think he was talking about?
Oh … perhaps all the other memorable events that have shaped our society since 1914. It was not restricted to the Nazi’s. That is only your reflection on his comment. Those of us with a broader scope consider the peace movements, shift to more liberal thinking, television, the advent of the computer and faster more efficient communication, space travel, the rise of communism and a whole lot of other factors as important before suddenly deciding that it only refers to a “Labour = Nazi” comment.
Silly boy.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Roger nome
“The media will not be anything like “censored”. Anyone who claims they will be doesn’t understand the Act, particularly its stated goals.”
If you are trying to be reassuring,it isn’t working. The Act is directed at pretty much everyone except the “the media”.
We have already seen the first website forced to shut down for doing nothing more than expressing political opinions in an election year. This is not something that should occur in a liberal democracy.
Richard Hurst
Good post.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“No, most of this and of his piece appears to be focussed on the restrictions this places on activists.”
Oh yes, all those grass-roots activists who spend over $120,000 on a political campaign in less than 9 months. Oh woe is me! We’re sliding into dictatorship! Democracy under attack! Only Mr Farrar and Whale Oil/Cameron Slater, whith their pictures of Chairman Mao and Robert Mugabe can save us now!
January 31st, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“We have already seen the first website forced to shut down for doing nothing more than expressing political opinions in an election year.”
That’s because the Act Party idoiot deliberately went out of his way to break the law. All he needed to do was get his message out on a blog instead (just as effective) and he would have been fine.
[DPF: Yes how dare he not use the Government approved technology platform to express a view against a political party]
January 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“Oh … perhaps all the other memorable events that have shaped our society since 1914.”
Excuse me Pascal, but this is the Labour=Nazis blog, so forgive me for reading David’s comment in that context.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Sonic aye?
Far behind the times as per.
Catz is soooooo 06
lolrus
January 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
roger nome: Oh yes, all those grass-roots activists
Yes, that website that cost less than $50. Yes, he could have worked around it by putting it on a blog. Do you think that in any way indicates the law is working? If you do … can I know your party affiliation so I can call you a [party] idiot as well?
roger nome: Excuse me Pascal, but this is the Labour=Nazis blog, so forgive me for reading David’s comment in that context.
*sighs* As you will. You’re poorer for that however.
It seems to me though that when you’re shown to be in the wrong, your best answer is attack, smear and attempt to denigrate people. It’s not a good look Roger. A man of substance would admit he’s wrong or ignored the rest of the world history since then as David pointed out to you …
January 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Roger Nome: “oh BTW pascal if David wasn’t refering to the Nazi’s what do you think he was talking about?”
Every thought, with your vast knowledge of 20th Century History, that you could possibly be talking about Stalin, Mao, in fact, the entire Communist block? What the Nazi did was truely horrible, but what Stalin, Mao, et al. did to their own people have to be considered to be equivalent, if not worse. All of that horror arose from ever increasing “suppression of dissitants”. No need to invoke Godwin’s law at all.
Just so you know, and before you really put your foot in it, my wife is Ukrainian. Do you really want to know how many of her relatives died in the Ukrainian famine and the forced migration of the Ukrainian people by Stalin? Her mother lives with us now – do you want to hear some of the stories of her childhood growing up in the height of the Soviet system and the KGB? My wife and mother-in-law will tell you the REAL outcome of the socialist/communist political system.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Freed the slaves – Republicans
Reminds me of a line from Undercover Brother.
Conspiracy Brother: ” What has then Republican party ever done for the black man?”
January 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“do you want to hear some of the stories of her childhood growing up in the height of the Soviet system and the KGB?”
Only if you let me tell you about the horrors of the pinochet regime – but really what would the point be?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Roger Nome: Only if you let me tell you about the horrors of the pinochet regime – but really what would the point be?
The point would be that there has been a large number of events over the last 90 odd years that have shaped our modern world that you have chosen to ignore. To focus exclusively on one event and then accuse somebody of making such a comparison without a foundation for it seems – well. Purile.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Oh dear. Godwin alert! The first entry to use a Nazi analogy has run out of arguments. Why, it’s the Law!
January 31st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“go suck on a bong..!.”…?
how last millenium..!
i vaporise..therefore i am..
get (just a little bit) with it..!
eh darling..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I see roger has successfully got everyone debating the substance of what he said rather than what Moore said. The “Kiwiblog right” implies a cabal of single-minded thugs, roger. Yet the way you manage to distract them with a fluffy bit of leftist rhetoric susggests they should be called the “Kiwiblog kittens”, surely?
However, getting back to what Moore actually said… I think he’s fallen into the trap of imagining this government as in the traditional liberal democratic socialist mould. Hence his puzzlement – “conspiracy or cock up?” – about why such a government would introduce an Act with such draconian intentions.
(Note: It’s moot whether the courts and the Electoral Commission deliver on the intent, roger, sonic et al. If they don’t, that’s dumb luck on the part of the those who trangress the Act and bad drafting by Parliament. What alarms Moore – and most commenters here, including myself – is that the clear intention of the promoters of the Act, particularly the PM, is to outlaw high profile campaigns opposed to them and their policies).
Either Moore is being disingenuous or he’s trying to remind his Labour colleagues of their democratic roots, and trying to have them examine their principles and their consciences, because this is in no way a government in the liberal democratic mould.
A lot of the Labour MPs I’ve met have both principles and a conscience. I’ve therefore reached the conclusion that either they’re prepared to set these aside for another term in power or – more likely – that the current leadership brooks no dissent and that they, like Moore, hope it will soon end so that Labour might once more stand for something other than the perpetuation of its current leader’s hold on power.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Only if you let me tell you about the horrors of the pinochet regime – but really what would the point be?
And then we’ll return with Mao’s victims. Seriously, you do you really want to get into a which side had the worst dictators arguement?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Only if you let me tell you about the horrors of the pinochet regime – but really what would the point be?
The point is that both places felt the need to repress dissent and that neither they nor any other government that tries to do the same is ever correct.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Rex,
Good insight. I’d lean towards the first of your possible conclusions though.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
What Rex said.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Rex …thank you for your thoughtful posting.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Aww geez… thanks guys
unaha-closp:
You may well be right. I guess I can identify with the Labour MPs whom I know to be decent people because of my NZF experience. When Michael Laws took hold of the party and perverted it into something utterly opposed to the principleson which it was founded, there were those of us who hoped it would be almost destroyed in the 1996 election so the utter wrongfulness of what he was trying to do would be blamed, he’d be expelled, Winston would see the light, and we could rebuild it in the original mould.
Alas we got it right up to the “Winston would see the light” bit.
So I believe it’s possible there’s some in Labour who know in their heart of hearts that, like a dying patch of brush, the only way to get the party to regrow is to first burn what’s left of it off.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Or even “burn off what’s left of it”, if I’m going to write in English.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Mike Moore should start a “Real Labour” Party, running all the pissed-off potential candidates that the Hellenist cabal has locked out in favour of THEIR narrow, non-representative selections, on a platform of repeal of the EFB, no more social engineering, and tax cuts for the bottom-bracket earners. He would wipe out the current minor parties, and probably Hellenist Labour as well. Tamihere is a natural for co-leader.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
PhilBest: Mike came very close to doing just that. Then he got Michael Laws involved and it all turned to shit. I see a pattern developing here…
January 31st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I personally do not have a preference for left wing or right wing orientation, but I do get concerned when those who would attempt to criticise the government in a democracy in any meaningful way must first register with the government before doing so!
January 31st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Mike Moore for PM.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:53 pm
PhilBest “Mike Moore should start a real Liarbore party”, don’t know Phil, surly we are getting short on queers, steers and those that know whats best for us.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:29 am
All those opposed to the legislation should at least offer an alternative – Transparency International was unimpressed with our 2005 effort. It stunk on a global comparative scale.
Closing down a website because the author would not offer identity transparency, is hardly censorship of opinion.
My favourite alternative is “matching funds” – a party receiving the equivalent in tax funding for whatever it raised from party members in donations (up to a limit). Otherwise requiring identity for larger donations over the matching funds threshold.
Another question is whether there should be restraint on party spending during the year as well as the campaign period itself (which this legislation has somewhat confused with a year long campaign period in election years). I was amongst those who suggested a 6 month period this time around (a poor compromise but progess is progress).
Then finally, how does one manage partisan groups operating as fronts to get around party campaign limits. The EB group in choosing to finesse the rules with a negative campaign against the enemies of National opened up this whole can of worms.
There will still be a plethora of groups many hostile to the government (all sorts of interest sector groups are forming on American patterns to oppose the left and advocate to the right their agenda) operating with little restraint, which hardlty indicates draconian legislation is in play – just a poor choice of reform option. But denial of the need for reform and the overblown claims of some threat to democracy, is just partisanship and demagoguery run amok.
February 1st, 2008 at 7:08 am
SPC: “Then finally, how does one manage partisan groups operating as fronts to get around party campaign limits.”
You can’t, that’s the beauty and idiocy of the law. If everyone registered separately as their own organisation we could all spend $120,000 each, making the law completely pointless. As far as I can see there is nothing stopping someone setting up organisations called ” extra funds 1″, ” extra funds 2″ etc and spending $120,000 from each one.
So the law really cannot achieve anything, anyone who wants to spend lots of money on the election still can.
What it does do is impose loads of paperwork around doing so, by forcing you to register to use your free speech. Typical “Big Brother” beaurocratic rubbish, no benefit but lots more paperwork to employ more office workers and keep tabs on everyone.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Not to mention:
http://monkeyswithtypewriter.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-royal-commission.html