Large Donations
July 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm by David FarrarJust checked out the Electoral Commission page for donations above $30,000 (which must be declared within 10 days) and there have been three this year:
- ACT – John Boscawen $52,335
- National – Susan Chou $100,000
- ACT – Louis Crimp $100,520
Boscawen is of course the parliamentary leader of ACT. Chou has donated previously to both National (2010) and Labour (2008) plus to humanitarian causes.
Louis Crimp is an Invercargill businessman, whom I’ve blogged on previously. He stood for ACT in 1996. He also recently donated $1m to St Johns, and other causes:
When Invercargill businessman Louis Crimp had a car crash he was so touched that the St John staff treating him were volunteers he later decided to give the Southland branch $1 million.
He will hand over the cheque today. The massive donation follows a string of monetary and land gifts the philanthropist has made to the community.
In 2007 Mr Crimp paid more than $1m for a city bungalow which had been renovated as a fundraising project for Hospice House in Invercargill, with almost $800,000 of that going to the hospice.
Mr Crimp has given $200,000 to the Southland SPCA since 2008 while, in May, he gifted a residential section formerly owned by the Mongrel Mob to the Habitat for Humanity organisation.
I applaud people willing to donate their money to support policies or parties they believe will be good for New Zealand.
Related posts:
- Donations over $20,000
- More donations
- Big donations in 2008
- Thank you very much for your kind donations
July 26th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
NZ needs more Louis Crimps. Not to increase the rich prick taxation aspirations of the left, but because their humanity benefits everyone
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
As do I. Clearly these people are proud to be seen as supportive of something in which they believe, and good on them. But why should I, if I give a party $9,999, be able to insist on anonymity?
For me, $9,999 may represent a proportionally far greater part of my wealth than does, say, $100,000 to Mr Crimp. It may therefore be, for me, a donation of far greater significance and I might therefore be more insistent on there being a quid pro quo. And given the struggle for funds, almost $10,000 can be highly significant to a party. But again, proportionality applies – it’d matter less (and thus buy me less in return) to National than to, say, United Future. $10k to the Revenue Minister anonymously versus $100k to Act pubicly… if I was wanting to buy influence I know what I’d spend, and where*.
Any donation over $100 ought to be declarable, unless achieved through the party’s own fundraising (e.g. lots of $2 donations for a raffle) in which case it should be recorded as such.
Political parties, which more than any business or NGO exercise vast power over the rest of us, are the most unaccountable entities in NZ. In fact for legal purposes, they mostly don’t exist. By not insisting on enforceable rules and standards for their behaviour we’re doing ourselves a grave disservice.
* Please note, I’m not implying any impropriety on the part of the Minister of Revenue, merely illustrating that a dollar value cut-off does not adequately protect against the potential for donations to purchase undue influence.
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
So my $5 to OurNZ never appeared on the radar then?
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Rex, DPF,
Just what legal form do political parties take? I’d assumed they were incorporated societies, is that correct?
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
NZ and Oz are rated as the most philanthropic countries across every measure. But also because we have a number of wealthy people who give without seeking any reward or recognistion.
Of course those of the LEFT are always quick to denounce such people as rich pricks who stole from the poor in the first place blah blah blah blah etc etc.
They fail to understand that if those people werent so generous then we would all pay more taxes so the incompetent Gumint could waste most it before it got to do any good or good things wont get done and the poor and sick the LEFT pretend to stand for would suffer.
Alas the LEFT are condemned to never being able to bring themselves to admit that the rich pricks they hate do so much good in their own quiet way.
So BRAVO to them and to the LEFT..NUTS!!!!!!!
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
shhh don’t tell goofy or his followers that these people are out there. Good on them for giving away their money. The loony left will always hate anybody with more of anything than they have.
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Unions remain the biggest political donors, no?
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
@virtualmark:
First and most importantly, there is no prescribed legal form for a political party to take. So when you’re dealing with “National Widgets Limited” you understand immediately that it’s a company, it has to operate within well-established boundaries in its dealings with you (whether as a customer, investor, supplier, shareholder or whatever) and that there are a number of “watchdogs” whose job it is to ensure that it behaves ethically. And if it doesn’t, and you suffer a loss a result, you can sue it… and it can be made to rectify the wrong.
If you’re dealing with the “National Widget Collectors Inc” you know that it too has to have a constitution, that that constitution has to meet certain minimum standards, and that there is at least one watchdog there to protect you. And if it acts unjustly it too has a structure, and office holders, who can be held accountable.
However when dealing with “The National Party” you could be dealing with anything – or nothing. No doubt (David can correct me on this if I’m wrong) there’s a company somewhere that looks after its porperties and tangible assets. But it’s not the party and you can bet it won’t have anything to do with politics per se. There might be an incorporated society, I don’t know. NZ First had one. Many people thought that’s what they were joining but no, it had three members.
Unique amongst any recognised entity, all I need to say “I’m a political party” is to comply with the requirements of the Electoral Commission. That gets me party status but doesn’t actually create any form of entity that can be held accountable.
And requirements like “candidate selection rules which provide for the democratic involvement of members in the process” are not defined. And because the party doesn’t exist, well… when David Stevenson and I tried to argue before the High Court in 1996 that burning the votes of Regional Chairpersons and having Michael Laws, Sarah Neems and Wisnton Peters rank a list based on their personal likes and dislikes (including the fall-out from a failed personal relationship) didn’t meet the “democratic involvement of members” standard we were told that the entity we’d joined was an “unincorporated society” and thus any rules it had meant nothing, and there was no one to hold accountable.
I see no reason why a party shouldn’t be an incorporated society, or for there to be a specialised political sub-category of incorporated society. It would then be subject to reporting and audit requirements, it would exist in law and it could be held accountable, as could its office holders. Its members would be protected, and its processes well established and subject to change only by the majority of members.
The only people who seem to have a problem with this is the people who make the laws. Wonder why that is?
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Rex says: “But why should I, if I give a party $9,999, be able to insist on anonymity?” And then: “Any donation over $100 ought to be declarable…”
If I donate to a particular party, I may have good (business) reasons to want my name withheld. If the threshold for anonymity is set at $100, then maybe I’d just donate in increments of $99 or even not bother at all. I also donate to Starship but again I don’t want my name bandied around. Its my business (and Starship’s) but no-one else’s. Same with any donation I care to make.
IMO, the current declaration levels are about right.
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I can’t agree, Rex. Firstly, if you’re trying to buy influence with politicians the proportion that $9,999 represents of your wealth is irrelevant. Any politician or party corruptly on the take would not consider your wealth or poverty as a factor, merely the value to them of the sum donated. Can’t see $9,999 buying you anything, frankly.
Secondly, our political life (just like our economy) won’t function properly in an environment of bureaucratic micro-management. Thresholds as low as you’re suggesting may deter thousands of party faithful from donating a couple of hundred dollars each because, for their own legitimate business or personal reasons, many people can’t afford to be seen publicly as being associated with or supporting a particular party or candidate. Such confidentiality (at the trivial levels of money being discussed here) is as valid as our acceptance of the confidentiality of the ballot box. Would you be inclined to abolish that too?
The logical end result of what you’re advocating is likely to be a substantial loss by parties of mass funding from members and supporters. Some parties and their activists want that outcome, especially lefties if I may say so – they like to think of themselves as “disadvantaged” rather than looking to the merits of their policies. Such parties would prefer to receive dollops of taxpayer funding (the quantum of which politicians themselves would determine, legislatively) rather than be troubled by having to go out and gather financial support the laborious, old-fashioned way.
The last thing I want to see in our political life is greater public funding of political parties. There is too much already. It is an insidious trend, already prone to parties breaching rules, and some politicians pontificating as though they see their particular interests as being above the law. No thanks.
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Good on Louis Crimp. He is a rough diamond, but mainly in the sense that he isn’t too worried about what others think of him. He does his own thing, often swimming against the tide of public opinion. I would far rather that people like Louis keep their wealth and give it away themselves than for it to be sucked into the Wellington bureaucracy via taxation then sprayed around on feel-good projects that simply waste resources. When people give their own money away they are quite careful about where it’s going and whether it’s going to make a difference. When politicians spend your money they usually have one eye on the political football, with inevitable results.
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
freedom101 says: “When people give their own money away they are quite careful about where it’s going and whether it’s going to make a difference. When politicians spend your money they usually have one eye on the political football, with inevitable results.”
Well said. A truly, top comment.
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Ah but he’s a capitalist and they are mean scrooges who do nothing for their fellow men. They should pay more tax.
C’mon you whinging lefties or are you that ashamed that you can’t match the gentleman’s generosity that you have slunk away in disgrace.
Vote:Front up with your share and hurry up about it.
You can’t, oh dear me. Fuck off then.
July 26th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
To Louis Crimp Thankyou very much.
St J SI 440051
Vote:July 26th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
@calendar girl:
Like I said, depends where you spend it. I don’t want to look like I’m casting aspersions on Peter Dunne (in fact he’s so utterly dull that I can’t see him ever doing anything as exciting as accepting a bribe
) but UF just happen to be the smallest party with the greatest influence so… $9,999 to UF is a major supplement to the relatively meagre public funding they’d receive, whereas it’s not likely to sway National much one way or the other. Mind you, if Labour’s polling is reflected in its finances, I might be better off investing there…
But my point is, it’s relative; for a small party it’s of greater significance. I’m not saying it’d buy outright corruption (I could suggest here someone with whom, based on previous performance, it might, but alas libel laws prevent me) but it may serve to purchase me far greater influence over a critical Minister (or a party holding the balance of power) than would be gained by another citizen who hadn’t donated. And that’s enough, in my view, to make disclosure desirable.
I don’t think NZ is that politicised a country that people would allow their business or private relationships to be influenced. In the US, where politics is increasingly partisan and bitter, I can see Tea Partiers not buying from Democrat donating businesses, for instance. But in NZ?
Personally, I wouldn’t be concerned if that were removed either. Who i voted for is not something I’m ashamed of. Regretful at times, certainly, but not ashamed. However I see no reason to change the law as we’re talking about one vote which, by definition, has no more influence than any other – unlike my $9,999 to an impoverished party which holds the balance of power.
Me neither. Political parties should be subject to the choice of the market, not subsidised. But I see choosing, and contributing toward, a political party as akin to picking out a suit; some may not agree with my taste but I’m happy to wear it. The attitude you (and the majority, it seems) have, makes supporting a politcal party more akin to the purchase of pornography… a transaction to be done away from public view, lest others disagree with your choices
Vote:July 27th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Coming from down South, I know Louis Crimp as a drunken slimeball – I ran a pub for a while and he often dropped in, bought a couple of bottles of wine and carried on driving as he popped them open to ‘enjoy’ on the trip. His money came from building very dodgy houses and then a windfall when he was bought out of the Chch casino. Giving away all this money wont make up for the damage he has done to many, many lives in Southland and those suckers that gamble it away at casinos. BOOOOOO
Vote:July 27th, 2011 at 9:39 am
@SouthernRight – so he invested and made money in the casino – nothing wrong with that – people ruin their own lives through their own choice.
Vote:July 27th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
I think that just as we have a secret ballot for elections, it is nobody’s business who gives to a party and what amount he or she gives. Money simply does not buy elections, and it is demonstrably untrue to say otherwise. Go ask Carly Fiorina, Steve Forbes and H Ross Perot how they did.
Vote: