Greens advocate US style funding

October 26th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

What hypocrites. The rail against US-style political finance consistently, using it to justify their support for the now deceased Electoral Finance Act and proposed Lobbying Transparency Bill.

Pete George blogs:

The Greens have been accused of using child poverty to mislead people into donating to them.

But a spokesman for New Zealand’s third-largest party said they were simply adopting fundraising techniques used by the likes of United States President Barack Obama.

A spokesman for the Greens said there was nothing suspect in the request for donations.

All donations received would go towards the party’s campaign to end child poverty.

“Ending child poverty requires political action. Our campaign is about getting rid of the political causes of poverty,” he said.

“Our fundraising appeals are consistent with recent developments in email fundraising. Many people now prefer to fund specific campaigns rather than parties.”

Mr Obama’s campaign team has employed similar tactics in the US presidential campaign, including asking for donations to fund a website dedicated to rebutting political attacks on the him.

The donations do not necessarily go directly to that cause but rather into the wider campaign fund.

Obviously the Green Party can adopt United States political techniques if they wish. It could be seen as smart and slick politics.

 So they are playing on the emotional response to poverty to try and raise funds for their political campaigning. Very principled.
This is the same party that is spending taxpayers money on purchasing signatures (through paid collectors) for a citizen’s initiated referenda. Again, quite legal, but absolutely against the intent of the legislation which is for citizens to hold MPs to account, not for MPs to hijack.
Tags:

30 Responses to “Greens advocate US style funding”

  1. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    The neo-communists (Luddite Greens) using the tactics of a neo-socialist (Obama).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. speters (108 comments) says:

    I’m pretty sure email appeals aren’t the “US-style political finance” that the Greens rail against.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. YesWeDid (1,041 comments) says:

    The email makes it pretty clear that it is a donation to the Green Party to help fund their campaign on child poverty.

    I can’t see what the issue is, if you don’t support the Greens don’t make a donation, it’s not rocket science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. alloytoo (463 comments) says:

    When the Greens avowed policy is to increase unemployment, I don’t see how they can address child poverty (whatever that is) in NZ.

    I propose the following two measures of poverty in NZ.

    Poverty in NZ = Basic Sky
    Child poverty = No iPhone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    The Greens really do get under David Farrar’s skin, he devotes an excessive amounts of his time to railing against them. Perhaps the Tory court jester is a bit worried the Greens don’t find jokers very useful?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. CJPhoto (218 comments) says:

    At first I though they were raising funds for a charity. As you read further, it becomes apparent it is not a charitable donation but a political one.

    And given they aren’t in Government, the funds are likely to do very little for child poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. jasonh (19 comments) says:

    Bloggin on a blog post without including primary sources?
    Moderately lame – links please

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    fish_boy, the Greens get under any sensible citizen’s skin. They are a bunch of communists, whom, under the guise of protecting the environment, will do whatever it takes to advance their social agenda. Gaia is their trojan horse.

    The mismatch between their claimed objectives and actual deeds could not be more obvious.

    Unfortunately, there is a large sector of callow youth and gullible/idealistic individuals in our country prepared to support these no-hopers Luddites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. jasonh (19 comments) says:

    Ah Manolo another logical fallacy
    “I think this way, I think I am sensible, therefore I define sensible”
    It’s the fallacy that all of existance is perceived from your own viewpoint and all else is invalid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Rich Prick (1,630 comments) says:

    If that is the case jasonh, the world must be a bat-shit crazy place for Delahunty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Manolo (13,514 comments) says:

    What can I say, jasonh? Your logic is impeccable and unimpeachable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,297 comments) says:

    Greens have been out in force on this, but rather than reasoned defence of what they are doing their approach is dominated by attacking the messenger. That suggests a bit of discomfort about this approach. If not they should be alarmed by some of the reaction.

    The old environmental Greens have morphed into very un-Green-like political animals who will use any means to promote their socialist agenda. It might suit those in the party who are impatient and ambitious, but they might have to find a different constituency to back them on this, the faithful are losing faith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. jasonh (19 comments) says:

    Also the comment on luddites is a false one – the Greens cover a wide spectrum of types and a fair few I know are very tech advanced and tech savvy – and by that I don’t mean they like Linux.
    I prefer discussion that avoid self fulfilling bias as to “the other lot”. I find myself correcting those who describe Nat voters in a negative way using tedious stereotypes and do so to those who descibe parties of the left in a similar way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dime (9,658 comments) says:

    im surprised the greens have to resort to this. their constituency seem like a successful, cashed up bunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. DJP6-25 (1,304 comments) says:

    What would surprise me would be to see them operating any other way. That’s because it’s so unlikely.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    Give me money, it’s for the poor children.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. BeaB (2,080 comments) says:

    How does this party keep any credibility at all. Funny money should sunk it. And the lobbying bill disgrace. And now this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Reid (16,095 comments) says:

    “I think this way, I think I am sensible, therefore I define sensible”

    Well you may think that jasonh but you’d be quite wrong. You see, it’s not sensible, it’s mental. As in, those not mental can see those who are, but those who are mental think they’re normal and simply don’t see their own mentalism so they think the others are the mental ones. Sad, isn’t it.

    But you see, it’s like this. Those of us who aren’t mental can see why the Gweens think like they do. We understand their emotional attachments to their causes for we are all human. But the thing is, we who aren’t mental happen to live in the real world, of here we are, today. And we know that what the Gweens always but always do, every single time, is come up with some happy clappy idea that reflects your average ten-year old’s simplistic utopian vision of whatever, and procede to pwetend the whole thing is there because of some selfish rich pricks. Which is the first sign of mentalism, when you see that, laid before you as if the entire complex society we live in could possibly be boiled down to that one simplistic root cause time after time for every single little problem in the entire world. This is stage one mentalism known in the medical profession as politicus insanitas. Thinking one is so wonderful and so especially humane in every single way all the time and feeling so smug you almost burst with complete and utter self-righteousness is a common trait in this phase and Gween MP Gaweth Hughes is a fine speciman whom they’re studying carefully. Did you know the VRWC has got a plan in place just like the US have for taking out the nukes in Pakistan in case the Gweens ever get into power and for the same reason?

    Anyway, the point is, the Gweens never provide a roadmap of how to get from here to there, except in broad non-specific terms. If you don’t believe me then look at their mentalism on the exchange rate. So they want to get the RB Governor to bet against the market, to spend hundreds of billions of our money on betting against NY and London and Tokyo and Frankfurt and on and on. And what happens if we do all that and it still hasn’t worked? What happens then, dummies? But they don’t explain that do they.

    But in this case what’s happened with this campaign is the emotional mentalism, which is phase two and I’m afraid, it’s terminal. This time the Gaweth has morphed into a Metiwia Tuwei and the final insanity has taken over. It’s trademark signs are overwheening arrogance that their supreme humanity and compassion overrides that of every single other person who has ever ever lived throughout history, and therefore one can never be wrong, once one decides in their overwhelming wisdom that this windmill over here, needs a-charging. And off they ride, on their stupid donkeys, toward yet another stupid ten-year-old like mentalist vision they have seen, over there.

    I mean isn’t it pathetic. How they think they can solve child poverty hasn’t arisen. Again their moronic plans don’t provide a realistic method, given our parlous economic future for the foreseeable future. They don’t pay any attention to that, do they. This is why jasonh, it’s the Gweens who are not only not sensible, they’re mental, as well. Yes jason, it’s them who are mental, and we who aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. jasonh (19 comments) says:

    Sorry Reid – that wasn’t a cogent arguement, just an attack. Admittedly amusing in parts but more a titter raiser than anything coherent in the way of a reasoned rebuttal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Reid (16,095 comments) says:

    amusing in parts but more a titter raiser than anything coherent in the way of a reasoned rebuttal

    I see. OK. So how do they plan to fight poverty? Don’t tell me, give all the poor people more money. Simple. So where is the money going to come from? Er. They haven’t told us that bit. Erm. I mean they talk about taxing the rich but that ain’t going to raise it and Treasury papers pointing out the employment and migration consequences, the CPI increases, the effects on the manufacturing, export and service sectors from the reduced spending powers, would bring tears to anyone’s eyes, including theirs. Were they to implement tax hikes sufficient to do what they claim to want. Oh wait. They’d probably also have no problem in borrowing more, after all, they’ll just print some more when it comes time to pay it back. I mean tell me where I’m factually wrong here jason. Now does this any of this make any sense to you at all? You don’t have to an economist to see the mentalism inherent in everything the Gweens have said they would do to addwess poverty, do you.

    I trust that’s reasoned enough for you but if not, happy to explicate where required. Regrettably it’s not at all amusing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Reid (16,095 comments) says:

    I just heard on Checkpoint the CTU economist who may be a Gween, advocate the printing of money against the RB Governor’s advice, on the grounds that other countries are now doing it. But what about last-chance-saloon doesn’t this mental understand? Doesn’t he even know that those countries are ONLY doing it because they’re absolutely totally out of any other option? I mean he might as well say that a few countries have decided cancer can be good for you so their citizens are currently all trying to get cancer because the govt says so and he therefore suggests NZ gives it a go as well. Yes jason, it’s that mental.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. speters (108 comments) says:

    “I mean he might as well say that a few countries have decided cancer can be good for you so their citizens are currently all trying to get cancer because the govt says so and he therefore suggests NZ gives it a go as well.”

    Reid, that is one of the silliest analogies I’ve ever heard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    People need to stop accepting the bullsh1t rhetorical term “child poverty”. Point out that children are dependent on their parents. So the correct term should be household or family poverty.

    Also point out that the ONLY answer to this is contraception and note that while it’s difficult to use the pill everyday you can now get birth control shots that last for months.

    http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Reid (16,095 comments) says:

    Reid, that is one of the silliest analogies I’ve ever heard.

    But you agree nevertheless, it’s analogous?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Keeping Stock (10,168 comments) says:

    This is an extract from Metiria Turei’s speech in the Third Reading debate on the Electoral Finance Act on 18/12/2007:


    We also have a changing political process. We have got rid of door-knocking now—that traditional practice. Instead, we have very expensive phone spamming by Canadian call centres, which will ring 70,000 households—just like that—in order to drum up support for a dying campaign. Yes, this legislation requires transparency by those who are engaged in the electioneering campaign, and the Greens are pleased we were able to expose the rort of 2005 before it could seriously contaminate the election process. This bill helps to protect us against that rort and that kind of corruption. We have obvious examples from other, similar jurisdictions overseas where corruption has infected the political system. US democracy has become a commodity that is routinely bought and sold.
    Members should make no mistake: advertising works. In New Zealand the advertising industry is worth more than $2 billion a year. Nobody would spend that kind of money unless it was effective. Democracy in the US, in fact, relies on marketing for its very existence. Who can stand for election and whose message will prevail depends on the donors, and the ongoing flows of cash and donations have come to depend on the elective representatives remembering to pay the piper. It is a form of democracy that has virtually no life at all outside the classic examples, where donations determine who gets to stand and who gets to succeed.

    So when Dubya was PoTUS, “US democracy has become a commodity that is routinely bought and sold.” But now that Obama is in power, the Greens want to follow his example of raising funds from the unsuspecting great unwashed for their political posturing. It’s rank hypocrisy.

    THE GREEN PARTY; WASTING OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY SINCE…LIKE, FOREVER :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Pete George (23,297 comments) says:

    Some blog comments on what ‘poverty’ is in New Zealand. Apparently.

    Much of that can be due to being a bit hard up. There are certainly many families finding things tough, but this is a ridiculous redefinition of the common perception of poverty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (16,095 comments) says:

    Why can’t the Greens advocate educating the heck out of the poor and the first lesson is: they are responsible for getting themselves out of their own situation through their own discipline and effort and no one will come in with a cart and wheel them to luxury without them first making considerable effort on their own part, same as the rest of us who aren’t poor, already always have done.

    And if you start with that message and follow up with effective free education in the local hall first on the basics then on the complex like how the corporate world works and what to say to your children all the time (I love you).

    If we did stuff like that, and stopped holding people back from knowledge of their own true capability, we’d make a real difference. So why don’t the Greens say that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ChardonnayGuy (1,183 comments) says:

    Can’t say I particularly like the idea of the CIR Act, period. Why can’t we repeal it and have done with all these potty plebiscites?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ChardonnayGuy (1,183 comments) says:

    And yes, I oppose the Labour/Green asset sales CIR as much as I do any other form of the accursed thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. pq (728 comments) says:

    i am sorry to remind you friends,
    but you have the choice of Labour, Green suck Maori government next time
    or a Nat, NZ First, coalition,
    if any of you see this as foolish tell me why,
    New Zealanders will no longer vote for the gravy train,
    PM Key is rated less than 50% to remain PM
    rattle dags NZ

    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.