Greens call for taxpayer funding of political parties

February 1st, 2014 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

The Green Party believes the rules could be amended further. It wants an inquiry to investigate state funding for election campaigns.

A spokeswoman said: “We see partial public funding of parties as a further step to help level the playing field between parties and to help combat parties being captured by wealthy interests.”

That would be a terrible thing. Any significant donations must be disclosed so people can then make informed decisions on consent. The just want taxpayers to fund their own party, rather than be reliant on members and supporters. Then they’ll use that to limit how much money supporters can donate.

Tags: ,

47 Responses to “Greens call for taxpayer funding of political parties”

  1. jaba (2,089 comments) says:

    the Gweens want the taxpayer to fund them .. NO fkg way

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    We see partial public funding of parties as a further step to help level the playing field between parties and to help combat parties being captured by wealthy interests.

    And how do we combat parties being captured by the certifiably insane, like the Greens have been?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dog_eat_dog (743 comments) says:

    If the Greens still publish press releases on Scoop.co.nz then they are massive hypocrites.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. smttc (692 comments) says:

    The Greens want money, not information.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Longknives (4,467 comments) says:

    Fucking hell! Is there no end to the sense of entitlement from the Left?
    I fear for the New Zealand taxpayer once these nutjobs get into power…

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (13,386 comments) says:

    The Luddites are truly parasites, leeches and worms coloured green.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. bhudson (4,734 comments) says:

    Perhaps it is as simple as they are not able to raise enough money from people without the coercion that is government funding.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. NK (1,072 comments) says:

    This could work, as follows.

    All parties registered by a certain date this year (say 1 April) receive an initial grant of $5million to spend how they like for the next three years.

    The cap on parties spending their own money on broadcasting during the election campaign is removed.

    All donations, of any size, are disclosed and there is no limit on spending during this election campaign.

    After this election, the same rules above apply, except the Grant is reduced to $1 million per year to all parties in parliament and to those who have 2,000 members by 1 April each year, but are outside of parliament.

    These would significantly level the playing field, which the Watermelons say they care about. Bring it on.

    PS: No, I haven’t thought about this really. It’s an initial brainfart. Except the cap on spending on broadcasting must be abolished.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    I haven’t thought about this really. It’s an initial brainfart

    That bit right there is the bit I agree with.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    I listened to Turei’s radio interview with Garner, in which she moaned about Judith Collins and played the race card. As near as I can see, she believes or claims to believe that Collins targets her because she stands up for poor people. What a bunch of self-victimising tosh.

    The issue with Turei’s castle and her clothes is one of inequality. It is hypocritical to bang on about poverty and inequality when you spend thousands of dollars to buy a jacket. Surely this is is a completely obvious point, even to a Green? The cost of just one Turei jacket could provide breakfast for a poor family for several years.

    And now Turei and her colleagues want the poor suffering taxpayer to pay even more money to guarantee an income for the Green elite. Has there ever been a party that was as greedy and hypocritical as the Greens?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. calendar girl (1,175 comments) says:

    The current political structure is open to insidious corruption and mutual Party back-scratching. There should be no public funding of political Parties at all. My concerns about the insidious effect of public funding include:

    - non-paid party advertising on publicly-own TV and radio

    - Leaders’ operating budgets, or any other slush funds, dedicated to “Party” purposes at the discretion of Party Leaders;

    - “Electorate” offices and non-Wellington staffing for MPs who represent no electorate at all, but as List MPs are accountable solely to their own Parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    If their policies are so brilliant they should have the wealthy flocking to support them, they should have donations rolling out of their ears.
    There must be some wealthy fucked up senile hippies out their that have made a fortune out of selling tat at the flea markets, surely.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hmmokrightitis (1,514 comments) says:

    If there is one thing that would get me to protest on the streets, its this. No way in hell. If you have enough popular support, you can tap them for money. If they cant be arsed supporting your ideas and ideals with money, then that sends you a signal. If your ideas aren’t attractive enough to voters, they sure as hell aren’t to taxpayers.

    Fuck off you evil communist bastards.

    Or I will start the Vagina Worship Party.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Brian Smaller (3,998 comments) says:

    Political parties should get ZERO tax payer money for running their administration and head offices, or for advertising or elections. If they can’t rake up the cash from their supporters then tough titty. I don’t belong to any political party and never have. I object to my money going to support political parties that I hate, let alone ones I merely disagree with on policy.

    But I guess that they must be short of cash heading into election year so are on the bludge.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    They can’t be serious. Do they genuinely care about poverty, waiting lists, the elderly.

    No. They are full of wacky policies. Where do they suppose the money would come from? They are like spoilt brats. They want and want and want.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    we fund the bastards enough, surely its not too much to ask that they raise their own money

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RightNow (6,676 comments) says:

    Here’s my solution: disallow any paid advertising – TV, Radio, Newspaper, Billboard, Online advertisements – anything.
    Each party gets to prepare information outlining their policy. This information goes into a single document containing all the parties’ policy. That document gets printed and distributed to everyone on the electoral roll.
    No party then needs to spend any money campaigning and they all have a level playing field.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. calendar girl (1,175 comments) says:

    “These would significantly level the playing field, which the Watermelons say they care about. Bring it on.”

    Why should it be regarded as a positive, seemingly without question, that the playing field be leveled?

    If a group of citizens with a common (political) purpose have sound policies that are communicated to – and resonate with – the voting public, they will be able to gather financial and practical support in support of their cause. If their policies lack adequate support, the group (Party) will languish and die. (Note also that the mass-communication element has never been more manageable than it is today.)

    Such a process is perfectly aligned with the true principles of democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. adze (1,869 comments) says:

    Regulatory capture is a serious problem in the US. Why is it different here I wonder? I suspect it is the cost of campaigning there.

    Maybe there should be a focus on innovative ways of keeping the cost of election campaigns down, rather than fretting about how smaller parties can fund them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. big bruv (13,316 comments) says:

    While we all hate the idea of funding the scum Green party you can be sure that if they form part of the next government they will pass legislation that ensures full tax payer funding of political parties.

    How ironic, the TAX payer funding a party that wants to give more of our money to those who do not work or want to work.

    While I have no time for the Labour party and their corrupt ways it is the Greens that I truly hate, they are the most dangerous and duplicitous people in the house.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. jp_1983 (189 comments) says:

    Wait till they start banning parties they don’t like.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Lance (2,454 comments) says:

    @jp_1983
    Yes
    That would be easy.

    Anybody that criticizes them is a racists (and other socially unacceptable terms).
    Therefore for the good of society those making such negative comments are deemed to be engaging in hate speeches.

    Therefore they would be banned and preferably imprisoned or possibly re-educated .

    What Nirvana for the loony left.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Fentex (867 comments) says:

    It’s a very tricky proposition unlikely to appeal to NZ because of our relative lack of corruption.

    In countries where government is plainly bought and sold it could be a lesser evil improving citizens lot, but here I suspect we’re more likely to disdain state funding of parties we don’t like than fear their private funding.

    And the need to have a base of support proven by it’s ability to raise some cash seems to work as establishing evidence of support worthy of some votes.

    Keeping cash’s influence on elections down seems the more important objective to me. Blocking practices where votes can be bought and influence peddled a more direct route to keeping government representative.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Swifty (19 comments) says:

    Very well said hmmokrightitis. I think similarly re protesting.

    Just as importantly, I’d like the Greens to show me the evidence of a correlation in NZ between campaign spending and seats won.

    I don’t think they’ll find one.

    Case in point, the Greens could spend millions and millions saturation campaigning for public-funding of political parties and I still wouldn’t vote for it or them!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. thedavincimode (6,539 comments) says:

    The bottom line on this is that the melons, who receive as much publicity and have as much access to the media press release/regurgitation system as anyone else, want 87% of the voting public to fund them. That 87% have already drawn their own conclusions on the melons and, aside from a minor percentage of leftie wobblers in Liebour, that 87% don’t want a bar of them.

    Public funding of political parties in this era of media access and press release recycling is an anachronism and should be done away with. Anyone who is stupid enough to want to learn more about these idiots can easily do so without taxpayer funding. It is simply an attempt to increase the size of the melon slush fund that will be only pissed up against the wall on bullshit referenda and other stunts.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. alwyn (380 comments) says:

    “To help level the playing field between parties”.
    I suggest that one of the main things that needs levelling is that any party that is in Parliament gets totally unlimited, taxpayer paid, travel for their MPs within New Zealand.
    For the six month period before an election all travel, except that between their home and Parliament, or for select committee hearings away from Wellington, shall be paid by the MP personally or their party. That will level things up between the Greens and, say, the Conservative Party.
    I realise that there can be problems for ministers but treat it as political, and therefore party funded if they make any public speaking appearance on a ministerial trip out of Wellington.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. lolitasbrother (486 comments) says:

    I am hoping that people will see what there is to see.
    The Greens have leadership that we can not vote for.
    There is something distinctly wrong with that communist and his co -leader.
    My opinion is that votes for NZ First or Conservative need to be coalesced.
    Unless NZ First declares in favour of NZ Nat goodbye.
    Our PM of NZ must give a seat to alternative back up and I suggest Conservative.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. tvb (4,210 comments) says:

    There is already very significant taxpayer support for political parties through the parliamentary service. And advertising through television is also paid by the taxpayer. What more do they want??

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OneTrack (2,618 comments) says:

    “What more do they want??”

    They want you to be taxed more and the money given to them. Simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Paying political parties has the same effect as giving foreign aid to African governments; it removes any need for them to seek to improve the lot of the people and instead leaves them free to pursue their own self-serving policies. The result is utter corruption.

    Political parties themselves are a great danger, as George Washington famously warned against in his final address. The idea that workers should be forced to pay for them is sickening. In the EU, for example, various fascist parties receive such funding along with the rest of the troughers.

    As for the Green’s claim that it ‘levels the playing field’, Dan Hannan reports that, in the EU: “When the law doesn’t serve their purpose, Euro-integrationists are quick to discard it. They are currently amending the rules so that a party can be deprived of funds if it fails to uphold ‘European values’. Who will determine whether it meets the criteria? In the last analysis, a plenary vote of the European Parliament. In other words, the question of whether a party qualifies will be in the hands of its political opponents, who will have a direct financial interest in barring it since, if it is dissolved, its share of the funding will be divided among the other parties. If that doesn’t alarm you, it should. The de-registration of opposition movements is the favoured tactic of dictators the world over. Most autocracies now hold regular elections: Iran, China, Zimbabwe. But participation in those elections is restricted to approved parties. A Polish MEP, shocked by the current proposal, told me: ‘This is exactly what the Communists did. They didn’t ban elections. They just banned the people they didn’t like from contesting the elections’.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100200358/state-funding-for-political-parties-leads-to-arrogance-corruption-and-in-the-end-arbitrary-rule/

    The Greens: Bringing troughing EU political corruption to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Viking2 (11,146 comments) says:

    Andrei (2,248 comments) says:
    February 1st, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    We see partial public funding of parties as a further step to help level the playing field between parties and to help combat parties being captured by wealthy interests.

    =======================
    well well. Lets talk about Greenpeace, castles, designer dresses et al.
    What a sad fucking joke these useless people are and they have no responsibilities like having to serve electors nor and electorate but are taxpayer funded to spend their lives and days just as they please roaming the countryside and generally sucking latte’s and making a a noise.

    If they want taxpayer funding the (even though its a never never), would want some form of accountability like having to get elected in an electorate seat and fronting to constituents and being accountable for funds used, on a tight budget and producing results for Kiwi’s.
    An impossible task for such empty headed vassals.

    Sooner they lose all their votes the better and they can join the poor out there working for a living.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. bringbackdemocracy (394 comments) says:

    The Greens already get $307,200 in tax-payer electoral funding.

    http://www.elections.org.nz/events/past-events-0/2011-general-election/parties-candidates-and-promoters-2011-ge/broadcasting

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Tautaioleua (282 comments) says:

    If we give money out to all political parties for campaigning, wouldn’t every man and his dog “register” a party just to cash in on the nonsense that is this suggestion?

    If nobody’s buying into your party ideology, that’s your problem – not ours!

    :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. wrightingright (138 comments) says:

    DPF, you linked to this:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/quizzes/news/quiz.cfm?c_id=1502918&qna_id=2865

    When you meant to link to this:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11195089

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. sooty (53 comments) says:

    If you can not get elected on your own account. FUCK OFF!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Warren Murray (280 comments) says:

    Bring back democracy is waaaay short of the cost.

    The Greens receive around $2million per annum from the taxpayer to support the party, not including salaries, accommodation, travel and other services used by its MPs.

    For Salaries and other allowances add around $2.1m.

    But it seems its not enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Of course those advantaged by the status quo, where the wealthier have electoral advantage, would die in a ditch to defend their privilege and attack anyone who dared challenge it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. LesleyNZ (20 comments) says:

    If a member of the Green Party can afford $2,000 plus jackets – they can afford to pay for their own election campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    If they can afford to buy a holiday home in Hawaii they can afford to pay for the campaign costs of all the political parties, yet Key is not even known to be a donor to National – given the party caters to those who can afford to do it for him, thus he does not need to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    When a party comprises of no-hoping envious bludgers, appeals to no-hoping envious bludgers, has the fiscal abilities of David Parker, then they must get financial support somehow. The decadent fools that support them have nothing, are nothing, and will never be anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    SPC: You fit the Green criteria . . . what a display of envy and failure.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. OneTrack (2,618 comments) says:

    SPC – The hard-left, ie the Greens, already have their information dissemination sorted out via their capture of Radio New Zealand and Campbell Live. What more do they need evil money for? Perhaps they could. barter for what they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    OneTrack: You overlooked APN and Fairfax.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Brian of Mt Wgtn (19 comments) says:

    I bet this has been concocted between the Greens and Labour. We all know the labour party is broke again.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. SPC (5,397 comments) says:

    Taxpayer funding occurs in the USA – but in the form of matching funds. Probably the fairest way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rich Prick (1,557 comments) says:

    Actually this call from the a Greens is entirely understandable. Wouldn’t you call for the same when your collection boxes return full of mung beans and beads?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ZenTiger (425 comments) says:

    It levels the playing field by NOT funding parties with tax payer money.

    Now all the people that don’t contribute tax have contributed as much to the political parties as the tax payers.

    To further level the playing field, how about no political party can offer tax cuts in a year of an election? Then they can’t bribe their way into Parliament.

    But I think the biggest area of inequality is that some parties get more votes than others. We really need to sort that out.

    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.