Candidate Expenses and Donations
April 6th, 2009 at 10:00 am by David FarrarBryce Edwards has some analysis of the candidate expenses and donations.
- Total candidate expenditure is $2.26m
- Total disclosed donations to candidates is $1.26m
- Average spent for a winning candidate is $12,836
- In only 38 out of 70 (54%) electorates, did the candidate spending the most money win!!
- The top five spending candidates all lost – Russell Fairbrother, Paul Adams, Nicky Wagner, Ron Mark and Stephen Franks
- Only 2 of the top ten winning candidates won their seats, and only seven of the top 20.
Bryce also has calculated the average spending per candidate for each party.
The amount spent by candidates on Internet advertising was interesting for me. The top spenders:
- Charles Chauvel $5,551
- Jills Angus Burney $2,658
- Brendon Burns $2,250
- Pita Sharples $,2000
- Aaron Gilmore $1,318
What did Charles spend $5,551 on?
Related posts:
- State funding overshadows private donations
- Anderton’s anonymous donations
- Geddis on donations
- Missing candidate
April 6th, 2009 at 10:16 am
I see Rodney got a bit over $10,000 in donations but only spent $6500. ( according to his return). I guess the Remuera Racquets Club will be getting a nice donation ( again)
[DPF: Idiot. Read what Bryce wrote. You can spend money on non advertising expenses such as rent or research]
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Wheres that edit .
Vote:And in Hunua One Roger Owen Douglas got ZERO donations but spent $18000 ( and Lost)
April 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Regulations regarding election spending are purely a ploy to tilt elections artificially in favour of the left.
They should be abandoned on the grounds that they are not only unworkable but also undemocratic.
Candidates should be free to solicit what contributions they desire, and spend what they desire.
As usual, the left postures as seeking “fairness” when the reality is they seek political advantage. Always.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Why is it so unusual that top spending candidates didn’t win?
If your seat was pretty much guaranteed why would you look to spend lots on advertsing.
Vote:it makes sense that those candidates that were behind but in with a chance (Nicky waner for instance) would spend more.
April 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Regulations regarding election spending are purely a ploy to tilt elections artificially in favour of the left.
Are you saying that if the right aren’t allowed to spend as much as they want they won’t win? I don’t think you are, but you could clarify.
If your seat was pretty much guaranteed why would you look to spend lots on advertsing.
it makes sense that those candidates that were behind but in with a chance (Nicky Wagner for instance) would spend more.
Pretty much. This isn’t surprising to me. I don’t know why Bryce is surprised (or acting surprised).
While you can’t make someone who is completely uncompetitive win merely through spending. But spending on clever marketing can help make you more competitive, and this is where spending limits are useful – democracy must be accessible to candidates and parties of limited means.
All this is pretty much common sense, really. I mean, if advertising was of no effect, why would people spend on it?
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Loved this bit:
“Act Party candidates spent a total of $126,156 (which added to the party’s other election expenditure takes its total 2008 spending to $1,371,948). The average spending for Act candidates was $4,070.
Green Party candidates spent a total of $40,816 (which added to the party’s other election expenditure takes its total 2008 spending to $1,746,938. The average spending for Green candidates was $1,020.”
Who’s the party of the rich now? The Green Party exhorts against the ‘riches’ of Act buying elections yet in total spends $400K more during the campaign!
Rich pricks.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
In some ways it’s a shame that those candidates that were prepared to put their money where thier mouth was didn’t get a chance to represent us. But then who can win against the might of the press that tends to ignore them. They at least must know how to make a dollor which would certainly help.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“Are you saying that if the right aren’t allowed to spend as much as they want they won’t win? I don’t think you are, but you could clarify.”
I’m saying exactly what I said, no more no less.
If you want me to put it another way, I’ll say that the reason the left attempt to restrict funding is because they in actuality enjoy little real support in the community, and wish to cripple through legislation those parties that do. Under the guise of “fairness”, the same deceit the left use in so many other similar scams.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Redbaiter, the only way to interpret your comment is that you equate support with money.
Vote:April 6th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Ron Mark spent almost $19,000 in Rimutaka and came a distant third. In fact, the eventual winner was only the third biggest spender.
Vote:April 7th, 2009 at 7:46 am
jacon van hartog
You seem aggrieved that Rodney Hide got elected while not spending much money, and that Roger Douglas spent quite a bit of money but didn’t get elected.
Do you actually have a point beyond displaying your palpable sense of resentment?
Vote: