Union spending in the campaign

April 10th, 2012 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Electoral Commission has also published the spending of the registered third parties, who spent over the disclosure limit.

The NZEI spent $280,000 campaigning against National and national standards.under

Just behind it was the PSA who also spent $196,000 campaigning against National, including texting people in the final week of the election to vote to support strong .

The big money was also with the Campaign for (despite the hysterical claims about business funding the Vote for Change campaign. The Campaign for spent $157,000 while Vote for Change spent a mere $80,000. There was also referendum spending pro by some of the political parties and unions, but under the disclosure limit.

As with previous elections the spending by unions is a magnitude greater than that by business groups.

Tags: , ,

12 Responses to “Union spending in the campaign”

  1. Graeme Edgeler (3,262 comments) says:

    Given that you pulled others up for not making the point a couple of posts ago, you should note that declared spending only covers the three months prior to the election.

    Union and corporate advertising (and MMP ads too) before that time does not need to be declared.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. SalParadise (54 comments) says:

    Hi DPF,

    Do either Vote for Change or the Campaign for MMP have to release a list of their donors and how much was donated? It would be interesting to see the average donation received by each group.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. laworder (269 comments) says:

    Is there a complete listing somewhere online? Just curious to have a look

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (22,754 comments) says:

    Third party returns:
    http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/thirdparties/third-party-expenses-returns/third-party-returns-election-11.html

    Candiate spending and donations:
    http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/electorate-candidates/expenses-returns/candidate-returns-by-party.html

    Party returns:
    http://www.elections.org.nz/rules/parties/party-expenses-returns/party-expense-returns.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mikenmild (10,618 comments) says:

    Hah. Vote for Change actually PAID Stringer for a cartoon!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    the reason only 80 grand was spent was because their polling told them they had a snowballs’ chance of winning..

    ..had it been even possible to undo mmp….the money would then have poured in..

    ..from the usual suspects..

    ..phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kimble (4,375 comments) says:

    the reason only 80 grand was spent was because their polling told them they had a snowballs’ chance of winning..

    Then why spend anything at all?

    And why did their opposition spend so much?

    You are talking crap.

    As usual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RightNow (6,646 comments) says:

    What Kimble said.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. s.russell (1,559 comments) says:

    The reality is that spending by both pro- and anti-MMP camps was pretty tiddly. And true enough – the money was not forthcoming – for either side – because most people thought the result a forgone conclusion. I doubt that result would have much different even if one side had spend millions though. People are not so easily bought. (Of course Holly Walker believes you can buy politicians for a dinner, but that’s Holly Walker for you, and another story.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan Johnstone (1,055 comments) says:

    “As with previous elections the spending by unions is a magnitude greater than that by business groups.”

    Except it isn’t is it ? It just about distribution.

    Unions tend to spend directly as third parties to retain some control over the message, business groups donate to national and let them spend the money on their behalf.

    Direct Labour spending was $1.78m, National directly spent $2.3m. The union spending just balances this out.

    [DPF: You are wrong. No business or employers group made a donation to National]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. burt (7,793 comments) says:

    $196,000 extracted from public servants to campaign against the government…… Gee ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Doug (405 comments) says:

    Even Australian Unions get involved in the NZ Electoral Campaign.

    A former EPMU secretary, Mr Little also disclosed two $1500 donations from Australian unions, including the coal miners’ union which he said had been supportive over the Pike River disaster. The maximum donation allowed from overseas donors is $1500.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.