Chuck it would also be great if there were no religious fundamentalist nutters in the world

Kapital, are you trying to imply those who oppose this attack on parental authority are religious fundamentalist nutters? That would be about 80% of the population.

Clearly the commies want to retain access to FREE union funded activity during election year hence the submission based on non-monetary good, monetary bad.

Right, wheres that height resticted game of cricket using live grenades….?

The statement you call illiterate in this comment was not a legal statement at all, it was a philosophical statement. The words “in a democratic society” are usually a giveaway in this regard.

As for “Rob’s view is that the only virtuous speech that is worthy of protection is where one applies no value (other than personal effort) in giving it expression. This is not a distinction the law makes either here or in any other Anglo American democracy.” I make two points:

1. I know you have read my submission, and so you know for certain that my position is not the one you give here.

2. And the position that I actually take is very similar to that taken in at least one Anglo democracy, namely Canada. (In fact, my position is considerably more tolerant of free contributuons than Canada’s)

As I said above, my statement was a philosophical one. So I do not presume to know good ideas from bad ones, c ontrary to your insinuation. I simply state that there really are “good ideas” that the population really like out there, and “bad ones’ that they do not like. That is all.

Certainly I am against “too much regulation,” just like you. It is just that you and I do not agree over how much is “too much.” I believe that some regulation “structures” competition rather than “reducing” it. By a strictly Darwinian logic (which you appear to favour in political competition), the restriction that cricket bowlers have to deliver a cricket ball rather than a live grenade “reduces the competition” in cricket.

On the first point, we agree. Any suggestion that, regardless of the precise formulation of the principles, anyone would attempt to regulate height or ability etc is silly. I keep telling you those suggestions are silly! But is is you, and the Law Society, who raise these red herrings as reasons why the current formulation is problematic, not me. If we can actually agree that nobody is going to get those rules passed regardless of the wording of the principles, then you have to concede that the spectres of those rules (which you continue to raise) do not actually represent any kind of a practical problem with the current wording.

I also agree with you that elections are not fair simply because there are spending limits. Limits are not a **sufficient** condition for fairness. I do, however, think they are a **necessary** condition. And your submission in favour of spending limits suggests that you agree.

Rob:

“that elections should, in a democratic society, be won by the candidates / parties with the best ideas in the eyes of the population. Note that this formulation relies on the ideas themselves, not on the advertising of the ideas. Advertising works, as you know, and often creates imperfections in the transfer of the quality of ideas into votes.”

This statement is legally illiterate. The “value” itself whether it be money or effort isn’t the speech but the ability to apply value isabsolutely necessary for any real exercise of the freedom of expression.

Rob’s view is that the only virtuous speech that is worthy of protection is where one applies no value (other than personal effort) in giving it expression. This is not a distinction the law makes either here or in any other Anglo American democracy.

As I have said to him elsewhere his position is legally illiterate.

He really is simply dressing up the old prejudice that in elections money spent = votes gained. Whereas the actual evidence is that the relationship between spending and votes is much weaker than that.

The other thing I love is his assertion that he can objectively determine “good ideas” that don’t necessary attract financial support from presumably “bad ideas” that presumably rake in the dough. Again just prejudice dressed up as analysis.

It’s the contest of ideas that matter, that’s why one should favour freedom over too much regulation, since the regulation reduces the competition. Poor political advertising is best remedied by the contest not a rule.

First, the suggestions that the “fairness” principle as currently stated could conceivably lead to restrictions or compensation in relation to candidate height, public speaking ability, etc are entirely silly. I suspect that the MoJ and the government do not take this line or argument at all seriously. It represents absurdist scaremongering designed as a stalking horse for an unduly laissez faire formulation of the principles.

Second, showing the “mischief” of unlimited contributions and advertising is not difficult. At a basic level, I hope you agree that elections should, in a democratic society, be won by the candidates / parties with the best ideas in the eyes of the population. Note that this formulation relies on the ideas themselves, not on the advertising of the ideas. Advertising works, as you know, and often creates imperfections in the transfer of the quality of ideas into votes. Next, you and I have agreed that there is a positive effect of candidate budget on vote share. (Although I acknowledge that we may disagree over how big the effect is, my read of your submission is that we agree there is a statistically significant effect.) The “mischief” arises because the best ideas do not necessarily attract the most contributions. There are two ways to attract contributions: (1) have good ideas; or (2) target your ideas, regardless of quality, at the people who have lots of money to contribute to political parties. Persuading those particular people does not necessarily make the ideas good ones. In the case of 2, the parties targeting the folk with the deep pockets gain advantage, through their increased advertising budget, even if their ideas are not actually better than their competitors’. In situations like this, unlimited contributions and advertising can cause a result where the team with the best ideas loses. And that is a significant “mischief” in the context of the democratic society I sketched at the start of the paragraph.

I briefly note two further points on this: (1) almost every democracy in the world agrees there is mischief in unlimited contributions and advertising; and (2) so do you, given your proposals for limits on political party spending.

Third, I note that I deal with your objection about regulating money but not regulating other stuff in my submission on this document.

[DPF: Rob - absolutely no one except you is raising the suggestion of height or public speaking ability restrictions. Do you really think that is what the Law Society is saying? Your problem is you think that raising an issue that can affect the "fairness" of an election means people are advocating it be regulated or restricted. That is your mindset, not most people's.

The point the Law Society is making, is that one should not fixate on money as the only factor that influences elections, as there are dozens of factors that have an influence. And the emperical evidence of recent elections is that money has a relatively modest impact.

Now like you, I am comfortable with some restrictions, such as party and candidate spending limits. But I want to avoid the mindset that an election is fair just because one has such spending limits, and would automatically be unfair without such limits.]

No there does not.

See. Opinons are easy.

I am a member of the public, and I am quite able to decide for myself. I do not need fake legislation aimed at ‘fairness’ which, as a poster pointed out above, is a childish unworkable fantasy. The kind of fantasy the left are well known for.

Despite what the Wombles of Wellington think, regulation can never create “fairness and equality”. Those things are Socialist/Marxist fantasies and never occur in the real world.

* more on that here: http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/there-is-no-such-thing-as-human-rights-a-classical-liberal-perspective-on-the-electoral-finance-act/

http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2008/11/08/insane-rules-for-election-day/

Yeah, but I like the free market on its own too. Which is why I continue to advocate for two essentially simple concepts that will clear this whole issue up in the most uncomplicated and effective way.

1) No taxpayers money used in election campaigns at all. Nada. Zip Zero. None.

2) No restrictions on what parties can spend on advertising.

Any advertising is subject to normal laws relating to defamation etc. So why the need for any legislation to control content at all???

This is all a sop to the left, who, because their policies are unpopular and therefore do not solicit much in the way of financial support from the public, (unless there’s a millionaire out there wanting a favour) have to steal from the public purse.

I am continually insulted and offended by politicians. I might tolerate their presence but in general I completely disdain them. I do not want one damn cent of my hard earned wages taken from me compulsorily and given to these useless bastards so they can soak us in propaganda and lies every election. Introduce more falsely justified legislation. Steal more of our money.

Its not as if anyone of them ever does much for liberty. Why should I be forced to give money to the election campaigns of a pack of bastards whose sole mission is to enslave me, and who never ever tell the truth????

Fuck em. Let them use their own damn money. Don’t help them with legislation to make it easier for them to tell lies and escape scrutiny. Open slather I say.