Anderton’s anonymous donations
December 21st, 2010 at 1:00 pm by David FarrarJim Anderton is one of those who has railed against anonymous donations in politics. So The Press reports:
Big spending did not necessarily translate into success in October’s local body elections, figures show.
Mayor Bob Parker paid for most of his $60,281 campaign to win a second term, but nearly two-thirds of the $62,283 campaign run by his main rival, Wigram MP Jim Anderton, was from anonymous donations and contributions from two Christchurch Labour MPs.
Election expense claim forms obtained by The Press also showed that two new city councillors, Tim Carter and Jamie Gough, both spent more than $20,000, while several sitting councillors who were re-elected spent a fraction of that.
Others who spent a large sum failed to win a council seat. Former councillor Bob Shearing spent more than $15,000 in his bid to retain his Riccarton-Wigram seat, only to lose by 32 votes, while Sir Kerry Burke spent more than $15,000 for a Spreydon-Heathcote seat but was defeated by the two incumbents, who together spent just over half that.
In the US some candidates spent $150 million and lost massively. Spending money gets your message haerd, but doesn’t mean that it gets well received.
Related posts:
- Ban all anonymous donations
- Anonymous Donations 1st quarter 2008
- Anonymous Donations starting to flow through Electoral Commission
- Anonymous and trust donations remain legal
December 21st, 2010 at 1:19 pm
It always frustrates me when people espouse that money can buy elections as a valid reason to curtail freedom of speech. Usually their evidence is anecdotal and when challenged falls to pieces.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
good to see Dyson and Dalziel losing 2k each on flogging a dead horse .. why would they do that??
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 1:35 pm
“In the US some candidates spent $150 million and lost massively. Spending money gets your message haerd, but doesn’t mean that it gets well received.”
Does Simon Power know that?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 1:37 pm
It always amazes me how politicians in particular assume that people who disagree with them either haven’t heard or don’t understand their message.
The fact that people might understand all to well never seems to enter their minds. Obama’s particularly bad for that.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
So Bob received no donations from anyone, not one single dollar, other than $4K from his parents.
That sounds about as likely as DPF having a dry Christmas.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 2:06 pm
““In the US some candidates spent $150 million and lost massively.”
Yep, and one spent $150,000 on clothing, hair styling and make-up and still lost massively, even after all that she still maintained she could see Russia from her house.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Why are we surprised. He’s a lefty and he accused others of doing it in the last Labour-led govt.
Winston proves that when a Labour-led govt accuse opposition of using secret trusts they are doing it themselves. Wikileaks has proven that when Labour were letting export earnings and the US dictate our policy they were accusing National of doing that.
So hey, lets find out what Anderton was really up to – roll out all his denigrations from the decade and we will really know what he’s been up to.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Gee Nanny Bruv, i don’t think Tina Fey ran for VP. sad that you have fallen for the usual lefty spin.
From Wikipedia (not exactly a bastion of Palin support)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misquotations
“I can see Russia from my house.” – Sarah Palin [P]
* During an interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin said about Russia: “They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”[15] However, it was actually Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live, portraying and satirizing Palin, who said the famous quote.[16]
Nice try nanna.
Yeswewhined. if you believe that Bob parker lied on his return, file a complaint and get him prosecuted. or is it easier to just imply but do nothing like a typical lefty?
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Oh look…Grendel has had to come to Redbaiter’s rescue, no doubt Russell is curled up in the corner sobbing uncontrollably.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Oh wow, another thread where the loud mouthed cabbie is flapping his jaw about Redbaiter at the expense of the issue. How sad to see such a sick obsession.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Jim Anderton a hypocrite? Gee; never saw that coming
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 3:19 pm
“In the US some candidates spent $150 million and lost massively”
What’s the counterfactual? How much more would they have lost by had they not spent so much?
Sure the marginal increase in votes diminishes once you reach such absurd numbers, but I’m sure you’re not suggesting that had those candidates only spent $1000 they would have reached the same proportion of the vote.
And that’s what makes spending problematic in an MMP environment, because it doesn’t necessarily matter whether you ‘win’ or ‘lose’ – it’s your proportion of the vote.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 3:19 pm
But he was robbed by the earthquake. And worst of all, he couldn’t make his usual nasty political capital out of it.
Vote:Laughed at old Kerry Burke squandering his pension too!
Perhpas we voters aren’t as silly as they think.
December 21st, 2010 at 4:00 pm
The Palin situation is interesting on several levels. One would argue that the way that single interview question was edited (to give the impression that “you can see russia from Alaska” was her answer) and then later mocked by Fey undid thousands if not millions of dollars of spending. But then Palin’s entry into the race was probably worth a lot in the first pace as McCain’s ticket suddenly surged.
Also I’d point out there was very little negative coverage of the fact that Obama threw massive amounts of money at his campaign, and that he reneged on his promise to take public funding. If the media refuses to be impartial there’s not a lot you can do.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 5:45 pm
There is clear evidence from the US that diminishing returns sets in very quickly when it comes to spending in election campaigns. The Economist comment recently on this: http://www.economist.com/node/17201957
Basically, the suggestion is that you need to about $US700,000 to get the name recognition needed to wage a credible campaign for a seat in the House of Reps. Beyond that, you are basically enriching advertising agencies and commercial makers.
Yes, politicians there do spend vast sums on their campaigns, and they should be free do so, since it is their money. The rules are also pretty transparent on where the money comes from and where it goes. There are also enough private watch-dogs active to keep things above board.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Redbaiters rescue? hardly; the opportunity to skewer you is to good to pass up.
the fact that Baiter also thinks you are a jackass is an aside, you two are just enough jackass for each other. Nice deflect though Nanny Brub, thats straight from the lefty playbook, next try distract and then denigrate.
Vote:December 21st, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Christ if I was stupid enough to donate money to doddering old Jimbo I would want it in writing first that I would remain anonymous.
Vote: