Who is funding Dalziel?

September 27th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The Press reports:

’s main mayoral rival has demanded she reveal who is helping fund her campaign as accusations of party politics fly between the pair.

The issue of whether political parties are helping fund the campaigns of Dalziel and flared briefly at Monday’s Press mayoral debate but intensified yesterday when Lonsdale was forced to defend rumours key National Party figures were helping him.

During the debate, Lonsdale admitted National’s Canterbury regional chairman Roger Bridge had given money to his campaign but Dalziel said she did not know who was funding her bid.

Lonsdale yesterday dismissed talk he was a National Party candidate and ramped up the pressure on Dalziel, demanding she should reveal some of her major donors as he had done.

Dalziel denied she had received any funding from the Labour Party or any unions.

She said her campaign was still fundraising but once the election was over, she would, as legally required, declare her major donors.

Dalziel said she preferred not to know who was helping pay for her campaign until after the election.

“That’s also because I don’t want any connection between who may have made a donation and the direction I might take as mayor.”

I watched the video of the debate where Dalziel said she did not know who was funding her campaign. With respect she sounded like John Banks denying knowledge of who funded his mayoral campaign.

The suggestions she does not known because she doesn’t want it impacting her decisions as Mayor is hard to believe because she will have to file a declaration soon after the election.

My conclusion is Dalziel doesn’t know because she wants to be able to avoid answering the question of who is funding her campaign.

Lonsdale has revealed his two major donors (he is in fact mainly funding the campaign himself he said). Dalziel’s refusal to do the same makes you wonder why. She could find out in five minutes. Why does she not want the public to know? As a sign of good faith she should disclose now any donations that would have to be disclosed after the election.

Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “Who is funding Dalziel?”

  1. RightNow (6,835 comments) says:

    She’ll no doubt instruct her team to lie in unison.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Camryn (551 comments) says:

    Why don’t the major political parties just go into local politics? Their well known brands would make voting a lot easier. If they’re worried about brand damage, they should at least create clear affiliate entities.

    In the US, it works fine having the same parties at all levels. That the local Democrats in San Francisco are about a million miles left of the national party (and fight them on many issues) seems to be fine. Same for Republicans in other contexts. Voters seem to be able to understand that local politics will throw up some embarrassing types without blaming the overall party too much.

    On the other hand, if there is a fear of not being able to control scandal across all levels of government then, logically, whatever party thinks they could manage it better should do it first and drag the others into it. Put another way, if National worries local politics would damage their brand but suspect it’d damage Labour’s more… why not do it?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Yoza (1,664 comments) says:

    Anyone running for any public office should be completely open about who is funding their campaign.

    ‘Secret’ campaign donations are undemocratic as the public do not know to whom or which organisation the candidate is beholden.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. BlairM (2,304 comments) says:

    It doesn’t matter who is funding her. It’s nobody’s business but hers. Nobody can buy an election or votes. It is up to voters to decide whether they like her policies or not.

    Most of the time it is the Left that want to stop the Right from raising money – that way less people hear their message and the ignorance tips the balance in the Left’s favour. Why play along with that crap? Let people raise as much money as they want, and allow donors to keep their anonymity in the same way that voters are currently allowed to keep theirs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. unaha-closp (1,137 comments) says:

    “That’s also because I don’t want any connection between who may have made a donation and the direction I might take as mayor.”

    Heaven forbid any politician be expected to divulge a hint of what they might do in office before they are elected.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. James Stephenson (2,084 comments) says:

    Why don’t the major political parties just go into local politics?

    I don’t know, but I did watch with amusement as Richard Northey, who is running as an actual Labour candidate in Maungakiekie-Tamaki, tried and failed to give out leaflets to the school-run crowd at Onehunga Primary last week. Dishevelled looking little tit in an ill-fitting suit, that he is.

    I was in a good mood so I did manage a smile along with my “you’re dreaming”.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. doggone7 (751 comments) says:

    “With respect she sounded like John Banks denying knowledge of who funded his mayoral campaign.”

    What’s the “with respect” bit mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. James Stephenson (2,084 comments) says:

    Didn’t you watch “Yes Minister” doggone?

    “With respect” is what you preface a statement with, to show that you have absolutely no respect for the person who is the subject of your statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Colville (2,165 comments) says:

    A Mayor has the power (behind the scenes) to make a private individual a massive amount of money by bringing pressue to bear on planning staff for the like of a private plan (zone ) change.
    If you have a bit of land that would suit housing or industry that currently has a few sheep on it a large donation to a future Mayor would be money well spent.
    Dalzeil needs to front up so people can vote knowing who is behind her.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. chris (587 comments) says:

    Why don’t the major political parties just go into local politics?

    I see a lot of candidate billboards in Auckland showing they are with Labour or the Greens. Which is excellent, because I know not to vote for them :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bringbackdemocracy (413 comments) says:

    It is a disgrace that she is still being paid as an MP while she is campaigning.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. iMP (2,331 comments) says:

    I think its an absolute joke that Lianne Dalziel is trying so hard to present an “Independent” platform, while trying to bag Paul Lonsdale (a true Independent) because he knows a person who is a National Party official. She can’t have it both ways. But let me put everyones minds at rest and start Lianne ‘s undisclosed donors list for her (please add names).

    1. The UN via Hulun Clark
    2. Ex Lab. Mayor Gary Moore
    3. Ex Lab. Mayor Vicki Buck
    4. The People’s Choice team
    5. Parliamentary Services/the Taxpayer re her Labour MP salary up till now
    6. Her parliamentary staff (emails, ph calls, booking airfairs, photocopying, etc,)
    7. Jim Anderton
    8. Various Rainbow entities
    9. Various Trade Unions using levies from non-Lab. Party members
    10. Remnants of the Alliance/Progressive Party or whatever you want to call them (Wigram/Chch East voters).
    11. ………………
    12. ………………

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Steve (North Shore) (4,518 comments) says:

    If Dalziel did reveal her funders, would she be telling the truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. lastmanstanding (1,235 comments) says:

    Maggie Thatcher said Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister were documentaries not comedies. the story scripts were the real deal. Anyone who thinks local body and central government is 100% Pure to use that phrase is a moron. Of course candidates can be and are bought. You scratch my back and Ill scratch yours. Favours are done. People are appointed to public office and in the case of Auckland Council to Directorships of Council Owned Organisations.

    Its been going on since Adam was a cowboy. In NZ its very very discreet and low range which is why we score so high in International Transperency surveys.

    Of course we don’t have the blatant corruption in China Africa South America but we do have low level small scale but still important governance issues around lack of disclosure and lack of transparency .

    Its human nature. All people have a price as the actress said to the Bishop. the only question is how much does it cost?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. OneTrack (2,782 comments) says:

    ‘Secret’ campaign donations are undemocratic as the public do not know to whom or which organisation the candidate is beholden.

    As opposed to the Labour Party who are owned by the unions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. peterwn (3,204 comments) says:

    Camryn – National Party has a fundamental policy of not getting involved in local politics which means its members are quite free to stand under whatever banner they choose, etc. It seems Labour does not have a hard and fast policy on this, it seems only to lend the ‘Labour’ brand to a campaign when it suits it. In some cases (eg much of Auckland) it is a liability.

    Interestingly it seems that centre-right local body aspirants in Auckland cannot even organise a piss-up in a brewery. Seems some asked National to get directly involved, and Whaleoil is of a like mind (perhaps the logic is he hates Nats President Peter Goodfellow, Peter will not get involved so Whale criticises the decision). Perhaps organising a local body political structure in Auckland is rather like herding cats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. rouppe (940 comments) says:

    You wonder why? It’s obvious. She’s touting herself as independent, and needs to maintain that as being ‘technically correct’ as Labour so loved to say some years ago.

    If donors were revealed she would be outed since Labour Party members, or unions, or the Party itself would be seen to be backing her bid. Then she would be shown to be a liar. She has form for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. doggone7 (751 comments) says:

    iMP

    11 SkyCity, via secret meetings and dealings which didn’t really happen?
    12 Kim Dotcom via unmarked envelopes marked with amounts and names handed over while on a helicopter ride from Christchurch to
    Auckland?

    She is likely to deny these sources.

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

    13 – every property developer in the Canterbury region (everyone knows she is going to win)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Paulus (2,554 comments) says:

    She is, of course, well known as a person who tells the Truth.

    Isn’t Jim Anderson Managing her Campaign ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. paulkingnz (1 comment) says:

    She was nominated by Philip Burdon and he is very wealthy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Lying Lianne at it again . . . she was stood down by the evil Clark for misleading Parliament, as was Parker . . . lovely people these leeching Labourites.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Inky_the_Red (744 comments) says:

    iMP

    I can assure you that the Alliance Party is not funding anyone in this campaign in Christchurch.

    If the Alliance Party were to fund anyone it would be me in my battle against you for the Shirley Papanui community board :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Inky_the_Red (744 comments) says:

    I think Dalziel should say her sources especially if there are any big ones. I said it was wrong when Parker refused to say the same in this case

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    “She was nominated by Philip Burdon and he is very wealthy”‘

    What bollocks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. V (689 comments) says:

    I thought Whaleoil was funding her?

    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.