Yet another bank account
August 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am by David FarrarTumeke’s slush fund diagram is going to have to become a billboard at this rate. Phil Kitchin at the Dom Post reveals the “National Campaign Account” for NZ First and how in 2003 there was a $10,000 cash donation made anonymously.
Cash donations of that magnitude are almost unheard of I would say. So the known funding sources now are:
- To the Spencer Trust
- To Brian Henry for legal bills
- To NZ First directly, breaking large donations into a series of small ones
- To the Winston Peters Fighting Fund
- To the National Campaign Account, as cash
There are also allegations of some highly unusual practices involving cheques which are never cashed. The list may grow further yet!
Related posts:
- Another secret trust fund!
- How much was in the undisclosed bank account?
- Shearer failed to disclose his offshore bank account
- Campaign 08 on Winston
August 28th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were in a better tactical position when they made a break for it.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Had to look that one up, Murray: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butch_Cassidy
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
We must take his word for it!
Don’t worry remember the slogan – “Keeping them honest”
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 11:51 am
“There are also allegations of some highly unusual practices involving cheques which are never cashed”
Well there is a legal difference between cheques that are cashed and cheques that are deposited into a bank a/c. Winston could have been quite correct in stating that cheques were received but never cashed. Doesn’t mean he never received the money though
.
The real test is in the payees bank a/c records. Were the cheques presented?
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Showing my age youngster.
The movie version is better. Robert Redford and Paul Newman try to breakout with the entire Mexican army waiting for them.
People who remember when milk was 4cents a pint will get the reference.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
If anyone should know how to make large amounts of cash disappear it would be Winnie, after all he has had ample opportunity to study under the best. Prehaps Winnie’s deep interest in the winebox inquiry instilled him with skills that he is now utilising.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
“Showing my age youngster.”
I think, more to the point, you are showing how weak education is in this country. It is terrible that anyone in a Western nation wouldn’t know who Butch Cassidy is.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Breaking news – Helen’s known since February!!!
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/08/breaking-news-helen-knew-too.html
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Just heard on TV3 news, Owen Glenn apparently told Helen Clark that he had made a $100k donation to Winston Peters BEFORE she asked Peters if he has received these funds, which he subsequently denied receiving.
The man has no integrity and no shame, and he should be sacked now.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Somewhere, someone is slowly releasing this information from it’s hiding places. I’m sure Phil Kitchin has more then one source… meaning there are a few disaffected people who are keen to see Winston die a political death by a thousand cuts.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
In the news just now, Helen knew in Feb that Owen Glenn gave money to Winnies legal fighting fund.
This means that Helen knew Winnie was making false statements but she helped to cover this up by not saying what she knew.
Scandal!!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4671265a6160.html
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were in a better tactical position when they made a break for it.
Murray, you and I frequently disagree, but that’s very good.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
OMFG!!!, Clark and Peters will now both be judged by the court of Public opinion, the outcome is awaited
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
wreck
Helen is asking us to believe, that Owen Glenn, before the issue broke and with NOTHING to gain, told her he had donated $100,000 to Winston Peters. She then asked Winston Peters about this and he said Owen Glenn was wrong. Helen Elizabeth Clark then unexplicably without further question or asking of evidence takes Winston’s word on this issue.
As the story breaks, she also inexplicably does not tell the the people who pay her and the foreign ministers salaries about this exchange.
Helen Clark had the knowledge and the means to clear up this mess and she didn’t. This can mean only one thing.
She is complicit in this sorry sad corrupt saga.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Boom
Vote:Agreed but should the question be what skeletons does Clark/Davies have that Winstons knows?
August 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Like anyone would believe Peters now freethinker. Its open season on the Winstobeste with free shots for all.
Let the Peters pinata season commence.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Number 6 missing from the list above: the buckets (literally) of pension money, most of it cash and cash cheques, collected at every meeting Winston attends. I don’t know what size crowds he’s pulling nowadays but when I was writing his speeches and travelling with him a turnout of 600 or so wasn’t uncommon.
I used to write around nine speeches a week (a fresh speech meant a fresh news story. Recycled ‘talking points’ means a lot of time and effort for a few hundred people, yet another fundamental campaigning tactic of which National seems oblivious).
So we can do some very rough sums. Allowing for weeks off (though in those days he wasn’t a Minister so very few overseas trips, and one thing I’ll say about Winston was he worked damned hard campaigning, albeit on nothing else) let’s say 40 weeks x 9 meetings x 600 people x an average just $5 a person.
That’s $1,080,000 a year in nice used bills, just from meetings. Then there were donations sent in by post. Of course since they’re all small individual amounts no law has been broken, but it’s worth considering that NZF probably could have done as Winston claimed and got by on money from ordinary people (supplemented by broadcasting allocations and Parliamentary Services money spent to employ political operatives such as myself).
And it’s also worth considering that the vast majority of those who dropped a portion of their pension in the bucket did so because they were explicitly told at these meetings (by Winston or the organisers, who were usually oblivious) that there were no Velas, no Glenns, no Jones’, writing large cheques and that they bore some responsibility for keeping their saviour afloat.
Each and every one of those donors, therefore, has had a moral – if not legal – fraud committed upon them. They have been looked in the eye and lied to by the man to whom they still claim allegiance. That is one of the connections that needs to be made to shake lose the last of the elderly that cling to “the last honest politician”.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I don’t recall any class teaching us about American outlaws, nor can I imagine why they should, I’m with Murray, I learned of Cassidy (and Jessie James, Billy the Kid, Kid (Flat-nose) Curry et al) through TV & movies.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Murray, WraithX
It was the Bolivian army in the movie.
Last time I looked, there were scarcely enough known facts about this small-time bandit to fill a postcard, let alone justify inclusion in a history book.
Brilliant line though, Murray. One to keep and treasure.
Vote:August 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Yeah but my 30 seconds of editing time expired before my flu ridden brain caught up with that and lets be honest, whats the real difference?
I maintain that the movie refernce is suficiently well known.
Vote: