Shock horror – electorates used MPs for fundraisers

May 7th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

3 News reported last night:

3 News can reveal details about a fundraising network used by the National Party to get donations in exchange for access to MPs and ministers.

The Green Party is calling it a secret racket, but because the donations are declared there are no rules broken.

The first rule of Cabinet Club is you do not talk about Cabinet Club. Four National MPs 3 News spoke with said they were not sure what it was.

It’s been many years since I was involved in the party organisation, but to the best of my knowledge there is no central organisation called Cabinet Club. It is a generic term that some use (including me) to refer to electorate level fundraisers where you pay an annual fee for a series of breakfast or lunch meetings with MPs.

Each electorate that has one, designs it themselves. Some may do a monthly breakfast with an MP or Minister speaking. Some may do occassional lunches or dinners. I’m not sure how many, if any, are called Cabinet Clubs. It’s a term that is used internally a bit as a generic term, but I’m not sure how many electorates, if any, use that term.

This is not some new secret fundraiser. Such “clubs” (it’s not a club – it an annual payment for a series of functions) have been absolutely common since at least the 1990s, if not the 1980s. And yes both major parties have electorates that use them.

Supporters pay a fee or donation to the party to attend three or four “informal luncheon/breakfast get-togethers”. They get access to ministers who attend, though the party claims “not in a ministerial capacity”.

It’s not access to ministers. It’s attending a function where they speak and do Q+A. Just like Ministers and MPs do around the country for rotary clubs, chambers of commerce and the like.

We have incredibly accessible Ministers. Most Ministers are doing public functions a couple of times a week. Almost anyone can meet an Minister in their electorate office, if they have one. If you ask to meet a Minister on a portfolio matter, most will make time to meet you. And community organisations and Ministers invite Ministers and MPs all the time to speak to them, meet them etc.

I note no other media seemed to have treated this as a story, as it is basically a non-story. The main people excited by it are Green Party supporters as they don’t want parties to be funded by private donations. They want to pass a law forcing taxpayers to directly fund political parties – which of course entrenches the established parties.

UPDATE: If you want a casr though of selling direct access, I blogged last year on how Labour was selling one on one meetings with its MPs for $1,500. Maybe an inquiring journalist could ask Russel Norman what he thinks of that. National sells tickets to breakfasts and lunches. Labour sells one on one meetings.

Tags:

90 Responses to “Shock horror – electorates used MPs for fundraisers”

  1. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Who in hell would pay to hear a gutless Green speak?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The same TV3 that was bailed out by a generous loan from Mr Joyce. Isn’t it ironic?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    TV3 seem to be struggling for relevance. This is a non story.
    I am a member of an electorate “club” if you want to call it that.
    A nice breakfast or drinks and question and answer with sometimes a minister sometimes an MP.
    That’s it.
    Helps the electorate with it’s funding and engenders a sense of teamwork.
    Quite frankly it’s no different to a service club inviting an MP, Cabinet Minister or the PM along to address a meeting.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. davidp (3,576 comments) says:

    As I pointed out the other day… The Greens charge people $50k over three years in return for a seat in our parliament. It’s seats for sale, and is the most corrupt practice in NZ politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ross12 (1,382 comments) says:

    Whaleoil has put up thread about the speech Jamie-lee Ross gave in Parliament basically supporting MW but he covers this BS by the Greens as well. He also hammers Winston and Labour. It is well watching the video

    http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2014/05/sledge-day-stand-mate/#more-135334

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. srylands (404 comments) says:

    This was on morning report, with Guyon trying to whip up hysteria. And R Norman did say the answer was public funding of political parties.

    There are some similarities here to the Oravida affair:

    1. Describe an event or series of events.

    2. Point out that one of the people involved is rich/eating lunch/donating money.

    3. Say there is a conflict of interest/it is not fair.

    4. Ask the rich person/Minister how many times they have gone to lunch/dinner/donated money/met a foreigner.

    4. Say it is outrageous/unfair/scandalous.

    5. Call for resignation/an inquiry/public funding/transparency.

    6. Go back to 1. And repeat 100 times.

    Some politicians have tried this game for decades. But what seems different now is that out hopeless media acquiesces in this game zombie like.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Ross12,
    Bloody good speech that.
    Gives a sound kicking to Winston, David Cunliffe and the greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Monty (974 comments) says:

    Make no mistake. This is part of an agenda by the Greens and Labour to make illegal corporate donations to political parties and to force the taxpayer to fund the political parties.b the use of terms like rich mates, cronyism, secret funding, special access! racket is all part of the plan to undermine Nationals Funding raising and promote their own secret agenda. Expect more similar stories over the coming months. When the left win an election expect this to be put through parliament at an early opportunity.

    These so called revelations and stories are an attempt to make national look like they are doing something wrong. I remember my father being involved with the National Party back in the 1970s (help shore up the catholic vote for National) and exactly what is going on then is going on now. ( except the wine was cheap crap)

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    I note no other media seemed to have treated this as a story, as it is basically a non-story.

    It was on Radio NZ this morning. Espiner did a good job knocking around Russell Norman and Peter Goodfellow both.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    The last paragraph of the 3News story online begins thus:

    But raising money this way isn’t against the rules

    3News seems to be particularly upset because the National Party has found a way to raise money without breaking the law! There was, of course, no mention of the story that DPF broke last year that you could buy access to a gaggle of Labour MP’s for $1500 at Labour’s conference last year:

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/10/labour_seeking_corporate_sponsors_for_its_conference.html

    Last night was not 3News’ finest news hour. Mediaworks’ partisanship is now there for all to see.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Graeme Edgeler (3,280 comments) says:

    Last night was not 3News’ finest news hour. Mediaworks’ partisanship is now there for all to see.

    The news story is in this bit:

    Four National MPs 3 News spoke with said they were not sure what it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jp_1983 (204 comments) says:

    State funding of political parties… And banning of individual donations to political parties

    Well that is a communist one party state…

    Keep the greens out of government

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    I think it is basically a non story, however emphasizes how National have learned to milk the system for all it is worth.

    Personally I do not believe there should be the ability for one party to raise more funding for campaigning than any other.

    They should all have the same amount to spend – making it much more equal – anything else and there are claims of ‘vote buying’ and god know what other sorts of debacles when it comes to donations.

    Give them all a thousand dollars and then see who is the most efficient and effective – might be a good way of determining who can balance a budget in times of restraint.

    And really, other than entertaining the vandals, does the expensive roadside advertising really make a difference?

    No election should be won simply because ‘my friends have more money than your friends’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    @ Ross12 and Alex M – this one is worth watching too; Louise Upston’s speech was outstanding:

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Mr Edgeler: does the Internet Party has similar mechanism or all funding comes from the obese German? :D

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Ross12 (1,382 comments) says:

    Monty is absolutely right. Labour has no money and they don’t have Mike Williams, who obviously did a good job for them with their fund raising. Norman somehow thinks the Greens are equally as important as the two main parties so it all has to be “fair distribution”. But the Greens have many wealthy supporters ( eg. Mills) –haven’t they worked how to wine & dine yet ??

    KStock — I wrote to Prime last night strongly suggesting that they compete with TV One and 3 News in the same time slot because I think these two have got so bad and unbalanced they have left a huge gap for serious , balanced news reporting. It will be interesting to see if I get a reply.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. JC (942 comments) says:

    “Four National MPs 3 News spoke with said they were not sure what it was.”

    I’m not surprised. I got my latest invite 3 days ago and the dumb bastards called it a “Campaign Fundraiser”.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    This sort of thing pisses me off. The media and some from the left seem determined to try and make our MP’s as inaccessible as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Ross12 (960 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Labour has no money …

    So what you are saying is money should be able to buy election results?

    Why are you even bothering with an election then?

    MONEY – the fundraising, the donations etc has been behind just about every political headline for the past few months. It has distracted the campaign from what should matter to New Zealanders.

    The current system allows the ‘buying of political favours’ and is doing nothing positive for this country. It needs to go – not just because the minor parties lack the ability to fund raise as much, but as long as the system is like that – there will always be claims of ‘unfair’ and distractions from the real issues that we should all be worried about.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    Cunningham (752 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 9:40 am
    This sort of thing pisses me off. The media and some from the left seem determined to try and make our MP’s as inaccessible as possible.

    LOL ” inaccessible – can’t buy a hearing’ REALLY? So you think that only those with enough money to buy access to MP’s, should get it?

    Jeez effin christ! That really takes the cake and makes it very clear exactly what path National wants to take the country. Thanks for clarifying it!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. questions (195 comments) says:

    Cash for access, cute. Certainly not the first time the right has been caught doing this, the Conservatives in the UK were dumb enough to print a price list.

    Perhaps DPF if its such a non issue, you can let us know what the expected donation for this annual subscription is?

    [DPF: It varies per electorate. Quite modest in the provincial centres. More so in the metro cities. Also depends how often the functions are. I'm not avoiding a straight answer - I literally don't know.]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    National just need to do what Cunliffe does – use a secret trust then refuse to name the donors and ignore the declaration rules even if they passed them into law themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Judith no what I am saying is all this bullshit scaremongering from the left and media seems designed to turn off Mp’s meeting with anyone in case they are accused of being in some sort of bullshit conspiracy. We are one of the the least corrupt countries in the world so what exactly has changed with regards to donations to cause this sudden bout of outrage from the left (and media)? Nothing apart from we have a useless opposition who can’t attack the government on anything else because everything is looking pretty good at the moment. Oh and BTW they were more then happy to get money from Mills to implement ‘green’ policies. How is that different exactly?

    And your whole ‘head in the clouds’ concept of everyone getting the same money. Are you fucking serious? What is so wrong with someone donating to a party they think is doing a good job? If Labour are too incompetent to get out there and raise money then that’s their issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ burt (7,114 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 9:46 am

    The money was donated with the people believing their names would not be given. When it became clear that wasn’t the case they were given the opportunity to cancel their donation. Which some did – therefore, there is no donation, and no name to reveal. In short, you are complaining about something that doesn’t exist. Clever that! ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    Judith

    Like if I walked into a shop and stole $1,000 worth of goods, got caught outside the shop then ran back in and put them back in the shop – I didn’t shoplift – right ????

    Was speeding and when I noticed the cop I slowed down – they would let me off because I was no longer in breach of the rules right ?

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (753 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 9:55 am

    The left and the media would have nothing to complain about, if no wrong or perception of wrong was given. Shooting the messenger will not make the problem go away.

    And, as I have said, do you seriously expect me to believe that if the boot was on the other foot, National supporters and the media wouldn’t be reporting it? Actually, you don’t have to even draw on your imagination there, because when Cunnliffe was forced to reveal his secret donors or return the money – National was laying the boot in (and also even mentioned it yesterday in the house) and the media had a field day with it – so I’m sorry, but your claims are not proven – they are all as bad as each other, only you seem to have one eye shut.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Judith

    And BTW please explain to us all how the Unions donating to Labour to get their policies implemented is OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Cash for access my arse.
    It’s giving a donation to the party I support.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    Judith
    It’s well proven that having the most money for advertising makes no difference to how people vote. It’s actually more about being able to stimulate your supporters.
    As for Cunliffes secret trusts, the money was paid, it was spent and only when they were caught out was it paid back.
    Your argument is specious ( although it’s so stupid I wonder if your tongue is in your cheek) and is akin to someone saying the overdraft they had didn’t exist because they paid it back.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ burt (7,115 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 9:58 am

    Oh please! The giving of donations is NOT committing a criminal act. Cunnliffe wrongfully told those people that their donations would be able to be made anonymously. When it was made clear that was not the case, he did the right thing and asked them if they still wanted their donation to count. They said NO, money back please. Which morally was the right thing to do.

    Those people acted in a certain way because they were led to believe that what they were doing was ‘legal’. If you tried to this in a criminal court of law, you’d lose – big time – actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Monty (974 comments) says:

    And in respect of unions how about being advised what is donated in terms of resource . Like time of union staff, union cars, union photocopying, union consultants such as media as well as all union money.

    Judith the point about cunliffes dodgy behaviour is that he did receive the donation. He did use the money donated. He must declare it. It matters not a bit that there was ignorance of the law. Cunliffe is hiding something and as the law states we have a right to know who the donors are. What in Cunliffe hiding?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Do other donors of ‘resources’ have to declare that? If I owned a building firm and got my workers to erect a few campaign signs, would that count as a donation?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Judith (5,863 comments) says:

    “When it was made clear that was not the case, he did the right thing and asked them if they still wanted their donation to count. They said NO, money back please. Which morally was the right thing to do.”

    Judith you are really making a fool of yourself on this post. Cunliffe got caught out that is the bottom line and had to backtrack. Nothing to do with morals as he has none. This guy goes on and on about secret donations so why would he even think of using a secret trust? Because he’s a HYPOCRITE of the highest order that’s why. Unfortunately the media gave him a pretty easy ride on it which in light of all this coverage over National is pretty despicable IMO.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,034 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:03 am

    Exactly my point Red. Advertising doesn’t really effect the results – however, the process of gaining donations etc is starting to affect the way the electorate considers their vote.

    As I pointed out – the media has been totally consumed for months on issues of donations and donors, croynism and so on – to the point that any policy revelations are all but ignored. It allows claims of ‘buying MP time’ and other such things to dominate – giving the illusion of corrupt practice. None of this is a good way for people to decide the future governance of our country on, and my opinion is, if it is so distracting, if it is going to dominate and influence the stupid on how to vote – then scrap it – and make the media and the political atmosphere concentrate on what does matter – the policies that will effect our lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RightNow (6,968 comments) says:

    Where is the evidence that the secret donations to Cun’liffe have been paid back?
    Cun’liffe should resign as an MP, he is a disgrace.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. OneTrack (2,975 comments) says:

    burt – “National just need to do what Cunliffe does – use a secret trust then refuse to name the donors and ignore the declaration rules even if they passed them into law themselves”

    The problem is this sort of corruption is only ok when the left do it. Just ask TV3 and RNZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (755 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:10 am

    I think we are all aware of what Cunnliffe is, or isn’t, but my concern is regarding the donors. IF they were lead to believe that their donations were anonymous, and then it was declared they weren’t, then they have done nothing wrong. The money was returned, and their names should not have to be revealed, and yet every day on here there is at least one person who demands that their names be told. Pathetic. Say what you like about Cunnliffe, but those people have the right to the privacy they believed they were acting under.

    Which brings us to the opposing side, and a minister saying she has the right to protect the privacy of someone she had dealings with. Privacy is just that – and you cannot expect the definition of the word to change, depending on which side is using it. If it helps at all, I think you are a fool too – but I’m sure that will mean as much to you, as you calling me a fool means to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. OneTrack (2,975 comments) says:

    RightNow – “Where is the evidence that the secret donations to Cun’liffe have been paid back?
    Cun’liffe should resign as an MP, he is a disgrace.”

    I think we are just supposed to take his word for it. CV, yeah/nah and I gave the donations back. Yeah, right.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Ross12 (1,382 comments) says:

    Judith

    “MONEY – the fundraising, the donations etc has been behind just about every political headline for the past few months. It has distracted the campaign from what should matter to New Zealanders. ”

    I agree with you here but it is not the Government who is doing all the stirring on it –it is primarily Labour. They even managed to get their ‘flagship” monetary policy off the front pages because of it.
    Many of their supporters were saying yesterday that did not matter because bringing down a senior Minister was more important.
    Well we know where the priorities are.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ RightNow (6,379 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:12 am et al

    Try taking it to court then, if you seriously believe that is the case, but I can tell you know you will be wasting your money.

    Those people had the right to withdraw their donation and therefore nullify the transaction, making it a non-event, and therefore legally not necessary for you to know their name.

    Now, talking about names, what is the name of the Chinese official Ms Collins met at a pre-planned meeting in China, which we paid for her to travel too?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Ross12 (961 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:19 am

    Yes Ross, and who was just a few weeks back over riding a Labour Policy announcement with Cunnliffe’s anonymous donation scheme?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Judith if he piad back the money before the leadership campaign then yes you have a point but he didn’t. That money was spent to help him get elected to the position of leader. It doesn’t matter whether he paid it back now or not (did he by the way?). He used that money to help become leader therefore it is in the publics interest to know who it was from.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    Judith
    Then we should criticise the Fourth Estate for being politically biased and not doing their job of providing information objectively to to the public.
    DPFs post yesterday about analysis of bias is moot. Editors seem to have forgotten that their job is to make money, not support activist journalism. Herald readership is declining at 10% per year and is down to readership of 600,000 ( source Roy Morgan).
    The responsibility for that lies with the Editors. I have many clients who refuse to give money to the NZH and advertise there.
    It’s madness on the part of the NZH because if they were more impartial they would grow. But they are not and I reckon the NZH will be for sale within two years as their current path is unsustainable .

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (756 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:27 am

    I have no problem with you saying whatever you like about Cunnliffe and the manner in which he conducted himself to be a leader – it was to use one word ‘filthy’.

    BUT – the people that contributed made a donation in good faith, believing the conditions to be a certain way – and to seek them out and persecute them is disgusting behaviour – their money was returned to them, and therefore their part is null in-void. You would not be successful if you tried to extract those details through a court of law.

    And in all honesty, all this re-emergence of Cunnliffe’s behaviour is simply some childish pay-back for labour trying to establish what Collins was up to. Tit for tat – and in my opinion as visible as hell.

    It’s all pathetic – the whole heap of them are as bad as each other – as I said yesterday, if this is the kind of choice we have for the future then we are in big trouble.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Psycho Milt (2,405 comments) says:

    There are some similarities here to the Oravida affair

    I guess so, in that both are instances of National thinking the cabinet manual doesn’t apply to its ministers. The big difference is this bit:

    3. Say there is a conflict of interest…

    In the Oravida case there is an actual conflict of interest, clearly demonstrated by released documents. Nobody’s claimed anything like that about this ‘cabinet club’ thing – that story was mainly an opportunity for Tova O’Brien to make a bunch of ministers look shifty (which she did very well).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Psycho Milt (2,405 comments) says:

    Last night was not 3News’ finest news hour. Mediaworks’ partisanship is now there for all to see.

    I have the horrible feeling that the above comment isn’t intended as satire…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Henry64 (83 comments) says:

    @ Judith – politics is a competition of ideas, not money. If left-wing political parties are unable to garner donations from legitimate sources and declare them openly and transparently as National does, whose fault is that?

    It’s not just the ability to raise money, if your ideas and policies are crap, your team is crap then few people are going to donate.

    I am just small fry, but because I support National and want them to stay in government I gave a token donation via their website earlier this year. The reason I support them is that their policies generally appeal to me and they are achieving concrete positive results for the whole country. This was the first time in my life that I have donated to a political party.

    Public funding of all political parties is a massive no-no. If you are not getting sufficent financial support from donations, then you need to review your policies and team, not sting the taxpayer. We pay enough for the elected masses as it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Henry64 (76 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:50 am

    National open and transparent!!!! LOL – that’s a funny one, you got me there!! ;-) I was thinking your post was serious.

    So, you agree with buying MP’s time then. Okay.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    Judith
    “BUT – the people that contributed made a donation in good faith,”

    You don’t know that. No one does because we don’t know who they are and can’t ask them…
    We also don’t know whether they placed conditions on their donations which were favourable to their own business or personal circumstances and when caught out wanted their money back.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. infused (652 comments) says:

    I cannot believe how fucking moronic people are being over at The Standard. Labour and the Greens are just pissed they can’t get anyone to pay to talk to them.

    These dinners have been happening for years and are widely advertised.

    Even stuff’s comments are stupid as hell.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,039 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:59 am

    You might think you are fooling a lot of people, but you aren’t. There is only one reason you and your other blue babies want to know who they are, so you can then name, and hopefully shame them and prevent other people from ever donating to Labour

    – in short you want to partake in dirty politics .

    If you are so keen on having that information, put your money where your mouth is, and take it to Court, and see where that gets you, and what it tells you about ‘acting in good faith’.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    Judith
    Dont be silly. No one is donating much to Labour anyway . And it’s a bit rich pointing the finger after all this bullying of Collins over who she had dinner with.
    It’s interesting you don’t believe in transparent donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. tvb (4,323 comments) says:

    The case for taxpayer funding is already partially in place now. There is a case to have state funding for the election campaign. Donations can be limited to natural persons up to a maximum of $15k.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,040 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Then clearly I hit the nail on the head.

    If you seriously think some wrong has been done, do it the correct way and stop whinging like a school girl, and take action. The fact that you think that is silly, proves there is only one reason for your grizzling, and that is because you don’t like the fact someone is having a go at your team. You’re happy to be the giver, but you make a terrible receiver.

    When you finally see sense and realise than none of them are open, none of them are transparent, and none of them are any better than the others, when it comes to using the media to score points, then we might get somewhere. Until then, you are a gullible as 95% of the population and will vote with your emotions rather than your head.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    Judith
    I think you are hitting your own fingers with a hammer more than anything else. Besides I think the words in my 1000+ posts proves my objectivity! certainly more than most.
    My advice to you is stick to David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,040 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:03 am

    I don’t believe in donations to political parties – full stop.

    In today’s society it leaves the door open to corruption – or at least suspicion of corruption, and as we have seen over the past few months, when our media and focus should be on who can offer the best policies for the well-being of our country, our attentions are diverted by the antics of scum-festering politicians who would be better place acting in Shortland Street, than they are in parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,041 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Of course you think that – and that is the only come back you are able to give – you’d think very differently though if I was prepared to kiss your blue babies arse and overlooked all his short-comings due to the light shining from his orifice.

    Face it – your team, like the other teams are not objective, you can’t stand criticism or anyone with a different political opinion. I do wonder how many of you actually get to live in the ordinary world with those sorts of limitations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    “You can’t stand criticism ”

    Irony alert .
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pC9iq_pZYqw

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. m@tt (630 comments) says:

    “These dinners have been happening for years and are widely advertised.”
    You are absolutely correct. The question them is why the ministers asked about it on camera pretended to know nothing?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Judith (5,875 comments) says:

    “I don’t believe in donations to political parties – full stop.”

    So I should be forced to fund a party such as the Greens or Mana whose policies I think will be hugely damaging for NZ? No way would I ever support that.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Henry64 (83 comments) says:

    @ Judith, I don’t need to ‘buy’ MP’s time. I live in Nicky Wagner’s elctorate. I just need to make an appointment to see her if I need to, so I get a Minister’s time for ‘free’.

    I was serious, the National Party’s donations are all correctly, transparently shown on the regisiter. No ‘srecret’ donors ala Cunliffe or as in the past – Peters.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    @ Judith – the issue with Cunliffe is that during the debate over the Electoral Finance Bill in 2007, he was a senior member of Cabinet in a party that sought to bring transparency to political donations. There were all sorts of emotive statements about buying political influence and the like from Labour and the Greens.

    Fast forward to 2013, and what does Mr Cunliffe do? He accepts anonymous donations to his campaign to become Labour Party leader, and funnels all his donations through a secret trust overseen by his friend/lawyer/blogger Greg Presland, who also had plenty to say about National, anonymous donations and secret trusts.

    The issue is not so much that Cunliffe was less than transparent in receiving anonymous donations. The issue is his hypocrisy for doing something that he condemned his opponents for doing, and the lack of judgment on his part in doing so. Did he really think he would get away with it?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (757 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:24 am

    It works all ways Cunningham, people that support those parties would be forced to also support the parties they don’t like as well.

    Are you scared if National has to play on an even playing field, they might not be able to perform?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    KS,
    Mr Cunliffes position is best summed up as “…do as I say, not do as I do…”.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    alex Masterley (1,447 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:31 am
    KS,
    Mr Cunliffes position is best summed up as “…do as I say, not do as I do…”.

    Oh, I thought that was what Collins said to Cunnliffe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Judith (5,877 comments) says:

    “It works all ways Cunningham, people that support those parties would be forced to also support the parties they don’t like as well. ”

    No Judith I am not worried at all. They have a very flawed viw of the world and I don’t want to give a cent to those economic vandals on pure principal.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Ed Snack (1,836 comments) says:

    Judith, to enter into the spirit of this discussion, my advice is “cum fodiens in foramen tincidunt”; oh, and “Ignorantia legis neminem excusat”.

    You want taxpayers money to be yet another slush fund for vile ignorant political activists of all stripes, YOU pay for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. david (2,571 comments) says:

    I don’t blame MP’s for being cautious about how they answer random questions like “what do you know about the Cabinet Club?” For all they know it might be the Chow Bros. latest establishment. Context is always important and anyone who tries to establish some context is being mature and prudent, especially in the highly charged atmosphere where misplacing a comma might be described as corruption and favouring rich mates.

    The only upside to the Collins episode is that it is getting a lot of the name calling over early and the public are getting heartily sick of attempted public kneecappings so we might get some decent debate and analysis between now and the election (He says hopefully but without much conviction that it will be borne out in reality)

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (758 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:39 am

    Can you please tell me who it is that is important and unbiased enough to decide whose view of the world is the correct one and whose isn’t?

    Are you trying to tell me that you are some sort of superior being that has the values necessary to make that kind of claim, above all other people?

    Or did you mean, in your opinion they have a flawed view of the world, therefore giving acknowledgment that you, as a national supporter do not think you are superior, and that all people are equal and entitled to their own political opinions without being denigrated or persecuted for them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    Judith

    Here is a clue… Cunliffe was part of the government that passed the laws which made it so they needed to declare donations. Like Mallard was a member of the government that passed the law saying campaign material (or protest material) required an authroisation statement including real name and residential address.

    Mallard of course didn’t want to put such details on his mobile billboard van so he didn’t … Kind of fair when you live in a world where the laws you pass are for others not yourself – like you are supporting Cunnlife for right now.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Richard Hurst (834 comments) says:

    Nice to see TV3 have started Labors election campaign early.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Ed Snack (1,836 comments) says:

    A fair summary of the left’s attitude to all activities: “It’s different when WE do it”.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ burt (7,116 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 12:10 pm

    So what? We all know exactly what Cunnliffe’s role was in this – there is no doubt about that – but how does that make it right for people who give a donation, believing it will be anonymous (possibly because they don’t want thousands of unhinged national supporters nagging them about it) to have their right to privacy breached?

    Those people gave, believing their names would be kept private – when it was revealed that couldn’t be done, they were given the right option of getting their money back. Some of them said, okay, we don’t mind our names being known, but for whatever reason, some decided they didn’t.

    That is their right – and to be made to give up that right, just some some blood thirsty individuals want to ‘name and shame’ in their desire for lefty blood, is frankly pathetic.

    Have you ever thought that maybe it is because of blogs like this, and some unhinged people that make threats towards people who they believe vote for the opposite team, that makes people not want to have their names revealed?
    Quite frankly some of the threats and statements made on here about what some of you want to do to green supporters etc is horrific. No wonder people want privacy – and so they should have – this is not North Korea or Baghdad. People are meant to be free from persecution in this country, regardless of their political beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Cunningham (836 comments) says:

    Judith (5,881 comments) says:

    “Are you trying to tell me that you are some sort of superior being that has the values necessary to make that kind of claim, above all other people? ”

    Good grief Judith, seriously? I don’t think I am any more superior then anyone else. Just because I don’t believe in their policies does not mean I think I am better than people who do. I just resent the idea that I am supposed to fund a party whose view I strongly disagree with. National’s policies align with my views so I am happy to support them financially. It is my CHOICE to do so. Why is that so wrong with that? Taking away that choice in my view is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (759 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 12:46 pm

    Because it encourages corruption.

    The people with the most money are able to give more and therefore encourage the policies of a particular party that best serves their interests. The party, by having the most money for promotion, is then able to receive more exposure to voters, which must influence the voters, or none of them would do it.

    There is no guarantee that the people with the most money to give, are necessarily supporting what is best for our country.

    If all parties had the same amount to spend, then the chance of corruption is reduced.

    It doesn’t have to be government money – but rather a realistic cap set – one that is achievable but does not encourage the type of crap we have seen recently.

    People state what Cunnliffe did was wrong, and I agree, but I also think accepting $80,000 from a Chinese based business is wrong too – there is only one reason that donation was made, and it was not out of concern for the people of New Zealand.

    PS, you stated their world view is faulty – no its not, its just different from yours! That doesn’t make it faulty, it just means you don’t believe the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Ed Snack (1,836 comments) says:

    But giving politicians taxpayer based funding is even more corrupt, it’s like giving a 2 year old access to the cookie jar. And then we need to deal with the volunteers, no party should be allowed to use volunteers of any sort because some parties have fewer of them and that’s unfair.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ Ed Snack (1,563 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    Sorry Ed, but again you are letting your biases and obvious dislike for equality, taint your opinion.

    If you don’t think that all people are entitled to equality, then really, are you living in the right country?

    I am also worried about how you think giving a 2 year old a cookie jar is corrupt? Might be unwise but corrupt? Surely corruption would only be possible if you were then requesting something sinister from the 2 year old in return? (A bit like private donations to a political party) :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. RJL (145 comments) says:

    @Henry64 I don’t need to ‘buy’ MP’s time. I live in Nicky Wagner’s elctorate. I just need to make an appointment to see her if I need to, so I get a Minister’s time for ‘free’.

    Of course, and the point is that because you haven’t paid $10,000 for that meeting, there is less “obligation” for her to do anything for you.

    It doesn’t mean that she’ll do anything for the person who paid $10,000, and it doesn’t mean that she’ll do nothing for you, but suddenly there are two classes of people she meets with: those who pay for meetings (and will presumably pay for further meetings if they think they are getting something out of it) and those who don’t.

    We all vote for people/parties who promise to do things that we agree with. The “payment” the parties receive for making these promises (and fulfilling them) is votes, which creates the opportunity for the party to make good on its promises. Each person has a vote. Everyone thus has an equal stake in influencing what the government is/does. This is what a democracy is.

    Cabinet Club is the opposite of democracy, because it creates the perception that those with money have a greater capability to influence the government than those with only votes. If anything, it is the rank-and-file National supporters that have lost the most via Cabinet Club. Opposition voters didn’t vote for what National promised anyway, but presumably rank-and-file National supporters did. But now it turns out that National is also peddling influence for money.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Ed Snack (1,836 comments) says:

    “My obvious dislike of Equality” Snork

    I bow to your ability to psychoanalyze by osmosis through teh internets. I guess you think you are in line to receive some of the bounty from said taxpayer extorted funding of political parties; good luck with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. All_on_Red (1,559 comments) says:

    Judith
    “Because it encourages corruption.”
    Not if the donations are transparent, because then we can examine the motives of those who donate.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. stigie (1,060 comments) says:

    I think most of us here do enjoy your comments Judith but today you are pissing everybody off !~

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    Judith

    but how does that make it right for people who give a donation, believing it will be anonymous

    Right … so because Cunliffe promised them something he was not legally entitled to do – we just ignore the law.

    King Cunliffe can just make up rules as he goes along now … and the law … that’s for others right ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. holysheet (338 comments) says:

    Judith said

    When it was made clear that was not the case, he did the right thing and asked them if they still wanted their donation to count. They said NO, money back please

    My question here is were did the money come from to pay the donation back? Liabore haven’t got any ready dosh and I am sure silent t didn’t pay it out of his own funds

    Follow the money

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. niggly (819 comments) says:

    This was on morning report, with Guyon trying to whip up hysteria. And R Norman did say the answer was public funding of political parties.

    Yeah, heard it at the time (actually didn’t think Guyon was too bad – he did have a dig at Wussel after all).

    But the most astounding thing that emanated from Wussel was that when Guyon pressed him about someone with influence v “Joe Bloggs” wanting to meet him, Wussel said that he would not be interested in meeting “Joe Bloggs” i.e. an everyday ordinary citizen if Joe Bloggs’ agenda wasn’t in step with Wussels eg Wussel would meet with Joe Bloggs ONLY if Joe Bloggs wanted to discuss Green Party issues but not other issues that the Greens aren’t interested in (but Joe Bloggs’ is interested in).

    Two thoughts in response:

    1. WTF? Aren’t MP’s (as paid by us taxpayers) meant to be avalable for anyone, not just select people that the Greens want to deal with? That’s even worse than this cabinet club beat-up!

    2. Scum List MP’s rorting MMP i.e. not accountable to the Electorate so can do whatever they want to do with all the time in the world to pursue personal causes.

    http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20140507-0741-greens_acuse_national_party_of_racketeering-048.mp3

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. itstricky (1,770 comments) says:

    Why are they charging for access. This sounds like corruption to me. Pay $1500 and you can talk to your favourite MP.

    FOOTNOTE: This is one of the first sentences posted on last year’s post by DPF about Labour’s fundraising. It got 34 up votes. I look forward to all my up votes and consequent fame and celebrity for saying the same thing about National.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ burt (7,117 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    No, you don’t ignore the law – if it was broken, but I believe that the money being paid back, officially cancels the donations, and as the people concerned had the belief at the time that they were entitled to make their donations anonymously, there is actually no way the law would take any action against them. If they tried they would be unsuccessful – I suggest you familiarise yourself with the term mens rea. Unless the people concerned knew their act was illegal, they cannot be punished for it. You do not have the right, just because you are nosey, to know what private people do with their money, sorry.

    Punish Cunnliffe all you like – I couldn’t care less, but persecuting innocent and private individuals stinks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (8,532 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,052 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Really? You think you have the right to know, let alone judge, why private individuals make donations?

    You need help! So National want a police state huh? GCSB makes more sense now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    Judith

    No, you don’t ignore the law – if it was broken, but I believe that the money being paid back, officially cancels the donations

    What world do you live in other than appologist for corruption land ?

    If I walk into your house and carry your TV out, put it in my car and drive it to my place, then weeks later take it back to your place – I’ve done nothing wrong ? I have no case to answer ?

    You are a very sad apologist over this – take a long hard look at how contorted your view needs to be to support the actions of your team.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    officially cancels the donations

    Officially … Oh, right – it’s office the donation never happened. You’re a friggin muppet.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    and as the people concerned had the belief at the time that they were entitled to make their donations anonymously, there is actually no way the law would take any action against them. If they tried they would be unsuccessful – I suggest you familiarise yourself with the term mens rea. Unless the people concerned knew their act was illegal, they cannot be punished for it.

    Who said anything about the people who made the donations being prosecuted ? You are right they did nothing wrong legally. What they did do wrong was trust a Labour MP and believe the BS they were told about there donations being anonymous.

    Cunliffe is the one with a case to answer, he helped pass the law requiring the disclosure, he decided he didn’t need to comply and promised his donors something he wasn’t legally entitled to promise them…

    But I get it, why should a Labour MP be held accountable under a law they helped pass – that law was for nasty National party people eh.

    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.