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……..

I think you’ll find that our EFA is heavily based on the American style meaning this could very well end up the case.

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?]

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.

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).

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”

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?

“Still hasn’t paid its debts” – that you can have an argument over.

Well, they all try to do that, Obama might be the first candidate to succeed.

Money can buy elections. Otherwise why resist the EFA restrictions?

Because:

1. It also regulates actual free free speech.
2. It regulates some speech unrelated to elections.

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.

Sorry that one doesn’t wash at all. We need transparency in NZ politics not smoke screens.

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.

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.

Duh.