“Buying elections”
The left often go on about how awful money in politics is, and how we need the EFA because hell we can’t have a third party spend more than $120,000 supporting or opposing a party over a year etc.
So where have been the protests from the left that Barack Obama “purchased” the nominaion by outspending Hillary Clinton? Why are they not denouncing Obama for unfairly spending more money than Clinton?
Now Obama pledged in February 2007 that he would stay in the federal public financing system if he did win the primary fight, as long as his GOP opponent did the same, which McCain has agreed to. What this means is you get around $85 million of public funding but can’t spend extra on top of that, once the nominating convention has concluded.
Now Obama is looking to renege on that pledge, and may become the first ever presidential candidate to try and bury his opponent through outspending in the general election. So again where are the howls of outrage?
June 5th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Because of the millions of pockets that money came from, any not just a few deep pockets. It’s called legitimacy.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Our governement has deep pockets by taking lots of money from millions. It’s called tax theft.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Yep, it seems McCain is a screaming socialist, he wants the US taxpayer to fund his run, where as Obama is using money donated by a lot of little people.
Wonder why McCain is against the Webb/Hagel GI bill, he is against infantry etc who only serve one enlistment getting it.
Yet he wants NCO types serving as PR assistants in Washington
DC for twelve years to have it.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
There’s a big difference between accepting donations from 1.5 million small donors and laundering $1.5 million through the Waitemata Trust. Obama went out of his way to ensure he didn’t owe any lobbyists any favours.
McCain has already broken the rules on public financing.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
There isn’t a single MP in Parliament who doesn’t believe in taking taxes “getstaffed”. More people in the last three elections voted for parties that advocate taking higher taxes than voted for parties that take less. They’ll get that choice again later this year. It’s called democracy. Get over it.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Stop the PRESS!!!!
Leftists exposed as hypocrites!
………….and in other breaking news Winston Peters plays the populist card!
June 5th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
You’re all missing DPF’s point. If spending more money than your opponent is wrong (which is why we have expenditure limits here) because it will ‘buy’ an election, it doesn’t matter where the money comes from – it is still wrong. Obama’s giant pile of money will allow him to put his messages in front of more people, more often and in more formats than McCain’s smaller pile of money. If they both take the Federal funds (which are collected largely through voluntary donations as part of the tax collection process – that is, taxpayers have to agree to have a couple of bucks go into the fund) they’ll be on an even financial footing. Wouldn’t that be more in the spirit of the EFA?
[DPF: Exactly this is not about donating money - it is about the left's insistence one side should not be able to spend more than the other.]
June 5th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
In the words of Comrade Trotter “it does not matter if the left break the rules as long as they stay in power”
Why is anybody shocked at the actions of Hussein Obama?
June 5th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Spending lots of money is wrong, because to spend lots of money you have to get lots of money. If you get lots of money from special interests, then you have to do favours for those special interests once you’re in power. This is even worse if voters don’t even know who those special interests are.
We know where Obama’s money’s coming from, and it’s not from special interests, so there’s no problem here.
June 5th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
>Because of the millions of pockets that money came from, any not just a few deep pockets.
So when Obama visited a group of billionaires, it was only to ask for small change. And he would have turned up to see any small group of people, personally, at home if they’d just ask…
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
June 5th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
God David don’t mention figures like $85 million around here. Don’t give our thieving friends from the left ideas. Shit old Sullen would manage to rustle up $85 million in no time flat if he knew it would guarantee three more years of glorious socialism.
Prehaps Obama should do a quick study of the corrupt left in New Zealand as an example of what happens when you try to screw the system. I hope that he sticks to the rules as it would be ashame to see the first black leader of a major party go to the dark side ( no pun intended ).
June 5th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
We’ve got over it. The EFA is helping ensure diminished participation in democracy so that fewer individuals and/or groups are speaking out about what they feel passionate about. Meantime the Government, powered by my tax money, is looking hard at ways to use more of it directly to drive their re-election propaganda. Democracy? Phooey.
If the Obama model is so honourable to you Lefties then get off your arses and help your Parties raise grass-root funding from million of members… rather than using legislative bulldozers to steal our tax money to fund your campaign propaganda.
davidp: thanks for the link. kinda takes the wind out of the “we only take money from small donors” flannel from Obama
June 5th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
This is slightly off topic. But Whaleoil references a very interesting graph showing how National’s support is rising and a line that crosses over National’s rise with Labour’s showing its support dropping. National rising about 0.5% a month since 2002 and Labour falling 0.25% a month since 2002. AND a new morgan poll (out today) showing Labour’s support in Auckland dropping to 27%!!!!!! and National’s now 56%!!!!! in Auckland. There is a “key-nami” coming Labour Government.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Good column. I am pleased to see that you are publicising the reasons why the EFA is so important. No one should be allowed to purchase an election. The EB’s plans last election to spend $1m would have resulted in this if their campaign was even slightly sympathetic to kiwi concerns.
So DPF, do you now support state funding of political parties so that money does not matter any more?
The EFA supports enhanced participation in democracy. Instead of relying on professional propaganda campaigns parties will have to rely on their activists to spread the word. I guess this does favour the left, the only grass root activists I have ever seen come from Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party…
June 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
mickeysavage, don’t be such a dick. the EFA is a complete crock. you know this. i know this. everyone with more than one eye open knows this (hmmm, ok so perhaps that excludes you then)
June 5th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
DPF, I’ll put my protest in here, because I don’t actually know any of the movers and shakers in the US GOP or Democrats.
But the US electoral system is totally undemocratic. In 2000 Gore got more votes than Dubya (even with the Florida computer voting scam) but the Shrub was still elected. The will of the people was not observed.
FPP does that! Just like the 1978 and 1981 election, in which Labour got more votes than National (remember, that was under Muldoon, so most of you righties probably should have supported Labour then if you were of voting age – the Great Roger was on the ascendent)!
At least we’ve got a half-decent electoral system, although I would prefer either compulsory primaries for the MMP Party List (as the Greens do voluntarily), or going to a multi-member electorate STV system.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
As usual DPF gets the issue of election spending all twisted.
The reason for the extensive regulation of raising and spendingof money in the US ( and as has happened here) is the the huge amounts that were previously only available from special interests
Of course the EB were such a small narrow interest group, a union with 10,000 members is a more broadly based but still narrow interest group.
Obama and Clinton have broken the rule books on raising amounts of money from the widest possible general members of the public.
We know how much helen clark has given to the labour party but its a big secret how much John key has given to the national party . Some say its over $1 million since he becam a candidate, indeed may have cliched the selection as a candidate.
When you have some facts about the secret donors to the NP thats the time to get on your high horse and start pointing the finger
June 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
hypocrites, yes
election stealer NO
June 5th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
I’ll take the bait
First, I am not a lefty and I don’t agree with spending caps when spending private money on elections here or the US (where this is a statement of the law). Nor do I support direct taxpayer funding of campaigns. As a matter of public policy I do support spending caps if taxpayer funding is provided and is taken for election campaigning on the basis of trade offs. There is no such thing as a free campaign or lunch.
I therefore hope Obama turns down the matching funds offered by the Federal Electoral Commission and entirely funds his campaign privately. I hope McCain does likewise although he probably needs the money more than Obama.
DPF is being slightly disingenuous to Obama when he states that Obama offered to take federal matching funds and therefore subject to a spending cap without any other condition. This isn’t the case.
The offer to take Federal matching funds was conditional on reaching an agreement with McCain on soft money and most importantly the 527’s.
There are some considerations here. The RNC is traditionally a very good fundraiser. It will probably be more so where some Republican’s aren’t that hot on their Presidential Candidate. It’s already spending on TV ads attacking Obama’s character. The DNC is traditionally a poor fundraiser.
More critically in the current climate, the likelihood the money flows into 527’s to go more negative on Obama that McCain himself is willing to do or actually explicitly or implicitly endorses is very very high.
The risk to Obama is that some conservatives use their money to fund their own message machines given that some are not super keen on McCain. Non PAC 527 spend isn’t capped or subject to the donation and disclosure regime.
Obama has pulled in over US$200 million and that’s just a Primary and Clinton over $US100 million. That suggests the Democrats are not likely to have money problems. Further, Obama has US$40 million in the bank already. McCain’s fundraising isn’t that hot yet.
Realistically I don’t know what McCain can do to reign in the more excitable elements of the GOP coalition to stop them winding up their 527’s into a fever pitch. They revile in the politics of personal destruction – so much so that they have narrowed their own base using these dark arts. Despite McCain, they can’t help themselves.
The final irony is that many of the problems faced by both candidates over this issue are in part of McCain’s making, given his support for regulating political competition.
It would be an irony if that terrible lefty radical commie liberal Obama took the conservative option and privately funded his campaign while McCain took the liberal lefty option and took taxpayer money.
Finally Obama has stated that he is considering Federal matching funds on the basis of precedent – from this I take it he means his own re election campaign and future Democratic Presidential candidates.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
grumpyoldhori said: Yep, it seems McCain is a screaming socialist, he wants the US taxpayer to fund his run, where as Obama is using money donated by a lot of little people.
Actually, I think that is the fairest solution. Allocate a realistic sum from public money to every party, and that’s what they have to campaign with.
That way, it is a contest if ideas, rather than a contest of money. It doesn’t matter whether the money is raised through a few large corporate donations, or thousands of individual ones, it is an unfair contest if the financial ability to communicate a message, rather than the message itself, is what determines an election.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Getstaffed
The column suggests that no politician should be able to buy an election. I agree.
This means that you have to put spending limits in place. i agree.
Political parties should therefore have limits. I agree.
Their friends and “third parties” therefore need to also have limits. I agree.
The EFA is therefore necessary.
Which part do you not agree with?
June 5th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Chris Diack said: First, I am not a lefty and I don’t agree with spending caps when spending private money on elections here
Chris, you used to be, when you were in the Labour Party, and I was not. Needless to say, I have never joined that party.
And unlike you, I do agree with spending caps. It is not acceptable that any party, of whatever political persuasion, can simply buy an election by having a funding stream that leaves all others dead in the water.
That (and their corrupt FPP electoral system) leads to the total lack of democracy we see in the US, as cited above.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
“And unlike you, I do agree with spending caps. It is not acceptable that any party, of whatever political persuasion, can simply buy an election by having a funding stream that leaves all others dead in the water”
But you are happy for us to pay for your electioneering?
June 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
For many opponents of the EFA, the part they don’t agree with is a spending limit 60% lower than the Electoral Commission and Human Rights Commission supported, and a regulated period 250% longer than the HRC supported.
Fix those and John Boscawen for one would shut up.
A process which didn’t take account of such concerns, and which allowed politicians to decide their own rules also isn’t a great selling point.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Oh, BTW, if he has a serious shortfall of funds, I’d back McCain to have access to public funds to make it up – even though I prefer Obama’s political positioning.
The level playing field is what I want, and it should go both ways.
Anyway, after 8 years of Bush’s and Cheney’s economic mismanagement and oilgrabbing warmongering in Iraq, I’m just glad that there will be a new Administration in the US in a few months, and whoever of Obama and McCain heads it, the world will ne a somewhat safer and healthier place and there will be a President who does not believe that God and the Big Corporates are somehow the same entity.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
You keep using a strawman version of the left’s argument. It’s all about donating money. If the rich can donate substantially more, parties are tempted to favour the rich. If those donations aren’t transparent, parties can shamelessly favour the rich.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Lets be straight-up here though. McCain indicated in March 07 he wanted to withdraw from the federal funding scheme – when he started doing well and didn’t need it anymore.
Notwithstanding that was in relation to the primary vs the presidential campaign, if you were now in Obama’s position with a war chest of $85m, what would you do?
Don’t worry though, it won’t change the outcome. McCain will win.
Then you can worry.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Toad, Toad , Toad, what are we to do with you, “that way it is a contest of ideas, rather than a contest of money”. Then why does your beloved Melon party try to screw the system over for more loot ( various examples today posted on Kiwiblog ) when your ideas are so fucking brillant. Surly given your above statement your ideas alone would be enough to convince the people of your superior wisdom and thus a chance to govern………….oh I must stop I’m pissing myself.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
SSB – money gathered and distributed in pursuit of winning the hearts and minds of the electorate is only grubby, immoral, wrong, scandalous etc when said money is being gathered and distributed by anyone other than Labour and it’s lap dogs. (and dogs they are… not fancy poodles. no, more like mangy mutts piled high in a city pound).
June 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Yeah Toad,
If unproportional systems are so undemocratic why was your party trying to fuck up the propportionality of the MMP system by do a grubby little back room deal with the Maori Party to create more overhang let alone supporting the existence of the Maori seats?
Hypocrite
June 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
“So where have been the protests from the left that Barack Obama “purchased” the nominaion by outspending Hillary Clinton? Why are they not denouncing Obama for unfairly spending more money than Clinton?”
You got us there. We’re all hypocritical, conniving socialist bastards!
June 5th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
I can’t stand it!!! What has the US electoral funding system got to do with little old NZ? If the debate is how the NZ elections are funded, fine….If you want to debate the US system, also fine. However, the differences are so great that trying to disucuss/debate the two at the same time (or in the same thread) leads to confusion and resolves nothing.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Have a good piss, side show bob. Hope it wasn’t in your pants (need to save excessive electricity usage on laundry at the moment).
Anyway, there is no more loot, whether Nandor Tanczos, Mike Ward, Catherine Delahunty or Russel Norman are in Parliament. The Parliamentary Service allocations are the same, Whoever is there using them. One MP replaces another. That is the flaw in your argument.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
pete:
pete, it’s quite simple.
If parties, left or conservative, are prepared to sell their soul to a donar for the sake of getting a large donation, they deserve neither your nor my vote. If National granted a policy concession to a person, company or interest group which went against the best interests of the majority in favour of the specific interests of that donar, I’d resign from the party and call it corrupt to anyone who’d listen.
Do Liarbore members have the same ethic? Based on news stories, I wonder.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
So where have been the protests from the left that Barack Obama “purchased” the nominaion by outspending Hillary Clinton? Why are they not denouncing Obama for unfairly spending more money than Clinton?
I denounce Obama for being a capitalist statist.
Oh. Wait. When you say “the left”, you mean someone different from all of the people who actually identify themselves with the left. You mean… Labour voters? Or something?
June 5th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Toad
Yes I was a member of the Labour Party in my teens and twenties but even then I never supported state funding of political parties and nor did I ever advocate for greater regulation of political competition. I supported what was an informal de-regulation of our political system with the introduction of MMP. For better or for worse most voters now get the representatives they voted for.
I cannot understand why the parties of the left (and the Greens) support ever more regulation of political competition.
Here is my prediction, National will repeal and replace the Electoral Finance Act, its replacement will provide for regulation of political competition that the Nat’s and their parliamentary allies like. Watch for instance for a Special Prosecutor enforcing criminalised absolute liability electoral laws where the burden is shifted to the transgressor to offer a reasonable excuse to avoid liability. Radical parties like the Greens and those who aren’t that hot on Party admin should watch out.
The Nats fair juice themselves at the thought of taking ever so sensible PC pod out of electoral law enforcement. And there hasn’t been a special prosecutor yet that hasn’t been over zealous – it justifies their existence.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Strutta – electoral systems my differ by country, but personal ambition and a willinness to distort the truth to secure power and sadly common across borders. it’s the latter attributes that appear to be in the spotlight on this thread
June 5th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
emmess: We were not. It was/is about a convergence of policy. The Green Party’s policy is closer to the Maori Party than any other, so it makes sense to at least have some sidcussions pre-election with them.
As for “grubby little deals” what about the National Party one that got most of their supporters to abandon the National candidate in Epsom (Richard Worth) and to vote for Rodney Hide instead.
“Touche emmess”, although at least Rodney and ACT have subsequently emerged as a party of principle, which is more than I can say for the Nats. Much easier for the Greens to deal with, when we know where they are coming from.
When are we going to see some Nat policy of substance – all we see is Key and English saying “it will be announced closer to the election”. Very hard for the Greens to make a positioning judgment on that!
June 5th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
reid:
reid, how would you find out that such a concession had been given? For all you know, John Key could have been given a seat in exchange for donating a million to the Waitemata trust. As long as parties are allowed to launder donations, voters can’t make that decision.
(P.S. I wouldn’t bet on a McCain victory. Obama’s already ahead in the national polls, by more than the margin of error, and that’s before Clinton’s supporters have stopped sulking.)
June 5th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Toad said ”
At least we’ve got a half-decent electoral system, although I would prefer either compulsory primaries for the MMP Party List (as the Greens do voluntarily), or going to a multi-member electorate STV system.”
MMP was design by the architects of the Marshall Plan and the AXIS forces that liberated NAZI Germany at the end of WWII, if MMP is the answer for NZ, then what the F was the question, by the way, MMP would not allow any one party in post war Germany to gain a dominating electoral foothold like the NAZIS did in the early 1930’s. We certainly have shades of the NAZIS running this country since 1999, how many refugees do we have in Aussie now?
June 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
getstaffed,
I understand your point, and it is good. I think my angst comes from the position that there are those who believe that money from small individual donors is somehow ‘better’ (i.e. more ethical) than from lagre donations from wealthy individuals or corporations. Both sides get large amounts of $ from corporate donations. At least the National/Republican side is willing to admit to that. The Labour/Democrat contigent continually put forth how evil corporate donations are in spite of receiving similar amounts from the same sources.
My point in this rant is … who is more likely to be open about being influenced by large individual/corporate donations…those that say such donations are ethical and acceptable or the party that insists they are unethical/evil?
June 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Chris Diack
The parties of the left do not support regulation of political competition. Bring it on, the more debate and discussion the better.
The current political climate is artificial. Labour the Greens and the Maori party have said what they will do, National has said that it will do what Labour does but that Labour is a terrible leader and nothing it has done is any good. I am still trying to get my head around this but my logic chip keeps protesting.
If National win power, and it is still a big if it will repeal the EFA and also make enrollment on the electoral rolls more difficult. The number of electors will decline. This is really sad and cynical but the Republicans in the US have supported every measure to restrict the right to vote because they realise that the more people that vote the worse their chances are. Anyone remember Florida in 2000? NZ is the same.
Should we restrict participation in our electoral system based on who are the “best” administrators? I do not think so. Shame on you for suggesting this. I guess that your experience with the LP in Onehunga makes you oppose democratic institutions.
June 5th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Chris Diack said: Yes I was a member of the Labour Party in my teens and twenties but even then I never supported state funding of political parties and nor did I ever advocate for greater regulation of political competition
Now, Chris, what was the resolution of the dispute over property ownership between you and the Labour Party? I can’t quite recall the details now, but you are welcome to enlighten us all.
As for your predictions re a Special Prosecutor, how would the Nats have got on over the GST debacle re the broadcasting funding at the last election? Hard to say that was an “oversight” and they didn’t know they had to pay GST on their accounts.
Hmm, which Nat official would have done the time in the interests of their political cause?
[DPF: National have never asserted they did not know. People keep lying about that. National failed to brief their agency in writing (which was bad) and the agency assumed it was GST exclusive. National took full responsibility for the mistake and was quite prepared to face the consequences. A total contrast to Labour who blatantly lied to the Chief Electoral Office over the pledge card]
June 5th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Toad: “As for “grubby little deals” what about the National Party one that got most of their supporters to abandon the National candidate in Epsom (Richard Worth) and to vote for Rodney Hide instead”
That’s untrue.
The National Party President and Auckland Divisional Rep on the National Party Executive wrote to all Epsom voters telling them to vote National twice.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
While Brash was publicly unequivocal about how Nat supporters in Epsom should vote, I recall. Not a very subtle hint!
June 5th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Chris Diack – Grubby little deals did happen
National put the word out subtly and their supporters followed and voted for Hide.
Labour and Stuart Nash said explicitly “vote for Worth he is a pillock but we will drive a stake in the heart of the ACT party and they will disappear” and they could not do so. Do not suggest that it is untrue. The message may as well as been in neon lights with pamphlets informing people where to look…
June 5th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Mickysavage:
The EFA is the regulation of political competition – get with the programme. Just because its regulation you like it doesn’t cease to be regulation.
Please don’t complain to me that the Nasty Nats are being “unfair” meanies for tactically deciding when to release their policy. Jump up and down about it – if enough voters (that matter to National) agree with you the Nats will release some.
You are correct National is likely to favour replacing the EFA with regulation that it likes. Requiring a photo id of some type at polling booths could well be on the cards – for the high purposes of preventing fraud and ensuring honest elections of course. Likewise they might address the issue of continuous enrolment too and return to a system of requiring all electors to periodically re-enrol – again to ensure the accuracy of our electoral rolls.
But then I hate to say I told you so but……..
Re Onehunga, for the record I won 75% of the first preference vote case in a preferential ballot in an electorate that contained 10% of the membership of the Labour Party at the time.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
CD
The EFA is regulation of expensive speech. A democracy requires this. Otherwise the most expensive speech wins. This is not very democratic or do you disagree?
The Nats can decide “tactically” to delay their release of policy or to not release it at all. This may be a good tactic but it is not democratic. I would prefer the ability to be able to compare visions for the country. The Nats can “decline” to take part in this but then it is a competition of ideas against … nothing. It might be successful but it is not democratic.
Photo IDs will prevent about 2 fradulent votes and prevent 50,000 legitimate votes from being cast. How democratic is that? The Nats can borrow from the US republicans these ideas but the court cases make harrowing reading. Do you really want to prevent Kiwis from casting legitimate votes?
What is your evidence of fraud? I have witnessed 12 elections and during this time there have been about 10 fraudulent votes out of over 20,000,000. Are you really suggesting that restrictions on democratic rights are necessary?
Re Onehunga – the LP thought you would be an appalling candidate and you relied on phantom branches set up by Prebble that had no real members. You manipulated the rules really well but democracy and common sense prevailed …
June 5th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Toad:
One cannot tell how National would have gone with a Special Prosecutor regarding spending its full broadcasting allocation excluding GST. I guess the Nats consider that usually they get better advice to stick within whatever regulatory regime applies and they are generally more conservative on interpreting the rules anyway.
I would hazard a guess that the Parliamentary parties that spent on physical communications that the Auditor General found to be illegal would have been in trouble with a Special Prosecutor.
Consider, the Nats are proposing that Registered Parties themselves can be convicted in addition to their human agents.
June 5th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
pete, “reid, how would you find out that such a concession had been given? For all you know, John Key could have been given a seat in exchange for donating a million to the Waitemata trust. As long as parties are allowed to launder donations, voters can’t make that decision.”
“Launder” carries a rather sinister connotation pete. Some foolish people imagine that everything secret is therefore sinister.
I imagine you’re not one of those, so what’s your point?
June 5th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
mickysavage
You are not the sharpest tool in the belt are you!
1. Epsom
While it is true that voters in Epsom ignored the advice of both National and Labour regarding Hide that wasn’t the intention of National in particular. It simply proves the old adage that voters don’t like being told what to do with their vote – classic over reach by the organisational leader of the Nats and the Parliamentary leader of Labour.
There is no evidence that the National party put the word out subtly or otherwise to vote for Hide.
2. Bleating about National’s policy release
Get off the grass – you want National to behave in a manner that is contrary to its interests and in your political interests. In the end if voters disapprove of National’s policy conduct they won’t vote for them.
3. Political regulation you don’t like.
You should not conclude that I support the examples I offered of regulation to guard against fraud. I have no idea whether this is on National’s agenda. I was merely making the point that once you make electoral regulation a partisan prize – you will get it dished back at you.
I happen to agree that electoral fraud of this sort is no more a problem than the wealthy brethren trying to buy an election. That’s why I favour electoral deregulation.
4. EFA regulates expensive speech – expensive speech buys elections.
No it doesn’t – and the basic premise that money buys elections is wrong. Money is necessary but not sufficient – other factors are also important. Not all ideas are of equal merit either, some are timely others not. Some pushed by appealing candidates some not so. Economic and political cycles also play a role. Some parties campaign better than others.
5. My Phantom Past.
Wrong again, the membership was fully audited by the Party prior to the selection and personally signed off by the Party VP at the time – one member was found to be under age – and this was caused un-intentionally by the parents. There were no phantom branches or members.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Chris, Chris, Chris Chris, Chris …
I do want National to behave in a way that is contrary to its interests. I want it to say what it will actually do so that Kiwis can actually decide if they support its world view. I suspect that they will not and this is why the Nats will not say what they will actually do. This is so cynical. I do not understand why you would even suggest that the withholding of this vital information is nothing but totally inappropriate.
Good to see you backtracking on action to prevent kiwis from voting. It is really disturbing that you would even hint at action to take the right to vote away from Kiwis. The Republican Party action in the US is so transparent and undemocratic that I am sure there would be a huge uprising against any such action in NZ.
Money can buy elections. Otherwise why resist the EFA restrictions? It does not stop activists from working. I guess the problem is that I have not seen a National Party grass roots activist for many years. I have also not seen any of those iwi kiwi billboards recently. I wonder why not?
As for the membership for your Onehunga selection it may have been “audited” but it was not legitimate. My impression is that you lost and then threw the toys out of the cot. Your actions in taking away the assets of the party were reprehensible. Shame on you. Probably just as well you were not selected. I could not imagine you as being a Labour MP. Good luck with the ACT party or the National Party or whichever party it is that you think will further your aims.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
So micky you want the Nats to reveal their thinking so those who have had all the opportunity and all the time and all the power yet still, have failed; can leach off their judgement and wisdom?
Duh.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Jezz David your circles are very small aren’t they.
There are plenty of us out there that are disgusted that this will be the first Presidential run in which a Billion will be spent.
it is completely immoral that this sort of money is thrown about for political office.
BTW he didn’t ‘buy’ his way in. As for the “may become the first ever presidential candidate to try and bury his opponent through outspending in the general election”. Sunshine you are way off the mark.
Besides it’s not about money, it’s about getting your brother to rig the vote in one key state and have a court throw out tens of thousands of valid votes, that’s moral – get off your high horse.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I don’t know why you go on about this DPF. By definition the Left cannot buy elections. The Left are good and care therefore any money spent is for your own good not to buy elections. Keep up!!
June 6th, 2008 at 12:37 am
mickysavage
1. Boohoo National’s unfair political tactics.
You are simply engaging in partisan bleating – all parties announce and advance their policies on a timing that they think is most advantageous to them. Whether the voters approve of the policy or the timing of the release is best decided in the ballot box.
Both Labour and National have been tacking on policy all year – both seeking to maximise their political advantage. That’s politics – get used to it.
2. Backtracking – nope
I offered some ideas for regulating political competition that National could sell to middle New Zealand and would arguably be in its partisan interests. I did so to make the point that once Labour started down this road it’s hard to turn back.
3. Why resist EFA
Because on principle I support the freedom of speech only subject to the general law (defamation) for non candidates and non parliamentary parties. They should not be subject to registration to exercise a freedom they have always enjoyed in New Zealand.
I also believe that regulating political competition is bad for our democracy. Rules are costly and distort behaviour. They also favour the rich and those with specialist skills.
And that parallel campaigning is best prevented by substantially upping or eliminating the spending caps that apply now.
I also regard anonymous donations as a safeguard against political reprisal in a small and intimate country.
Labour acted on its worst demons in pushing through the EFA – the political reward for that is for it to be punished over and over again for it. I hate to say I told you so….. but I told you so.
4. Onehunga
Every contribution you make on this issue is inaccurate and is actually a dressed up attempt at personal attack. I took no assets belonging to anybody – you compound your previous defamation. Stick to the arguments and try to avoid personality issues.
Having a pseudonym trying to focus on my alleged personal failings, political or financial dishonestly in a thread about US politics and regulation of political competition in New Zealand is ironic. It’s very Morris/Rovian – the sort of politics I despise.
I have no particular personal rancour against the Labour Party. I am looking forward to seeking how they respond to their likely electoral defeat – simply defending the failing welfare state status quo in education and health isn’t going to cut it long term. After arguably over compensating for their internal political trauma of rogernomics and the rise of New Labour/Alliance, will Labour move toward reform as they have in the tentative steps already taken in retirement income. I suspect that economic circumstances will drive greater radicalism from the two old parties over the next couple of elections.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:39 am
“anonymous donations as a safeguard against political reprisal in a small and intimate country”
Sorry that one doesn’t wash at all. We need transparency in NZ politics not smoke screens.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:25 am
National will no doubt reform the Electoral Act in New Zealand and scrap the EFA to get New Zealand’s house in order.
Labour proved at the last election that the left can’t be trusted. Stealing $800,000 of taxpayers money to get themselves re-elected.
Good to see the police are now looking into Labour violations of the EFA.
June 6th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Because:
1. It also regulates actual free free speech.
2. It regulates some speech unrelated to elections.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:44 am
OECD, remember National stole $112,000 of priceless broadcasting money to run ads in the last days of the election campaign.
Still hasnt been paid back
June 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Obama . . . may become the first ever presidential candidate to try and bury his opponent through outspending in the general election.
Well, they all try to do that, Obama might be the first candidate to succeed.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Funnily enough, I don’t recall retrospective legislation required for that.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
gww3 – there is no-one to pay ‘back’. National didn’t take money from anyone.
“Still hasn’t paid its debts” – that you can have an argument over.
June 6th, 2008 at 8:58 am
If money really can buy elections… how come Cullen’s $10b wasn’t enough to give them a lift in the polls? Quite the opposite in fact.
Could this be because voters are sick of being abused by their elected representatives?
Could it be because after years of economic fair weather this Labour government has squandered the benefits on bloated bureaucracy, ridiculous social agendas while encouraging the wealth creators (‘the rick pricks’) to emigrate?
June 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am
arghh too many comments.. this may have been posted already but what the hell..
obamas supporters defence will simply be this
“obama’s money comes from small people donating small amounts, hillary and mccains money comes from evil corporations! this is just a case of the “people” wanting a change”
June 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
The fundamental flaw in the EFA is the assumption stated in its purposes that money “unduly influences” the outcome of elections. This farcical principle is in direct conflict with the principle that one should be able to “exercise [their] freedom of speech” – which can often only be with their resources. Freedom of speech costs money to exercise (ie ads, publicity etc etc) so by taking away people’s rights to utilise their resources takes away their democratic rights. Money may influence an election to a limited extent, but it does not ‘unduly’ influence them.
For example, without money gained by legitimate fundraising, an anti-establishment outsider, Obama would never have won the democratic nomination. This is democracy in action. Lefties/pro-regulators, show me how fundraising is somehow unfair enough to restrict it like the EFA does? Show me an academic publications that shows why the use of money to persuade voters is somehow undue?
The EB should be entitled to spend as much money as they like to exercise their freedom of speech on the political process. How else does a small and marginalised group get their message across. But they failed miserably – this is not evidence that they unduly influenced the outcome of the election at all (apart from helping Labour). While I do not like what the EB stands for, I respect their right to have a say in the country they live in.
The left assumes that if the right receives donations that they are for secret payoffs. There is no basis for such an assumption. If there ever is a basis, no doubt it will be exposed and the party will pay for it. EF Regulation is unecessary and has unintended consequences (limiting the rights of 3rd parties and outsiders to the political process to gain support).
June 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
National came to an arrangement with the broadcasters where they would fund charity advertising as a contra and therefore got around the issue of breaking the law by paying the money back.
Interesting how the left’s cheerleader GWW3 equates cocking up GST with a deliberate decision to use taxpayers money to, using the left’s terms, steal an election. One is a mistake, perhaps even negligence, the other is corruption although no doubt GWW3 applies the Trotter principle that it was the most forgiveable type of corruption.
June 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The issue of transparency and the issue of caps are two distinct issues. Labour chose to ignore one and embrace the other.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:03 am
“The left often go on about how awful money in politics is”
“it is about the left’s insistence one side should not be able to spend more than the other”
Cute DPF. Tarring all on the left with the one ideal.
Why not say “the left eat puppies” and then put the whistle away?
I think what you mean is “the fair” when you say “the left”.
Given free reign, I think it’s obvious those on the right would raise more money as big business tends to favour the right and they have a lot more money.
The point I think you’re missing is that Obama got all these donations (remember that max of $2,500) from a lot of people. Because a lot of people like what he’s about. So rather than say “rah rah rah the left are being hypocrites” why not ask “Why does Obama inspire so many more people to open their wallets?”
I think it would garner better debate.
[DPF: Well National has around five times as many members as Labour. Why do so many more people join National than Labour? Shouldn't National be able to spend five times as much as Labour as they have five times as many members?]
June 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
They can…if they receive the donations.
I think you’ll find that our EFA is heavily based on the American style meaning this could very well end up the case.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Big business tends to favour Republicans, as well, but ….
June 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I have pointed out numerous times on this blog, there is a very good op-ed by David Horowitz called “Intellectual Class Wars”, in which he points out that LEFTWING political causes in the US are funded to an extent of around TEN TIMES AS MUCH as “conservative” political causes. Joseph Schumpeter predicted decades ago that the big money falling into the hands of the descendants of those who actually earnt it, would ultimately end up being used in the service of trendy Leftwing causes as those inheritors will care more about being popular with the elite and the media than what their forebears stood for.
The irony is that the freest capitalist markets thus sow the seeds of their own destruction, while nations that always HAVE been “soft socialist” actually LACK this phenomenon of wealthy leftists: ergo, NZ Labour crying poor while the “Democratic” Party in the US puts up candidates that are more and more LEFT, and raise more and more money in the process……..