What is Laila’s stance on capping political donations?

May 29th, 2014 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

I’m pretty certain has in the past campaigned on capping the amount any one person can donate to a political party. The CTU submitted in 2007 that there should be a maximum cap of $5,000. The Greens have supported a cap. These are her last two employers.

Does she still support a cap of $5,000?

Does she have no problems leading a party that so far has had (at least) $250,000 donated to it by one person?

Amazing how flexible principles are, when you’re receiving the money.

Tags: ,

40 Responses to “What is Laila’s stance on capping political donations?”

  1. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    It’s DIFFERENT when Labour, the Greens, Internet-Mana, New Labour, The Alliance, the rump of the Alliance, the PFJ (splitters!)…and anyone else Laila has or will be associated with do it!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. doggone7 (769 comments) says:

    She should just organise a few dinners with secret donors paying to the restaurant with the restaurant donating the money to a trust who donates it to another trust who donates it to the political party.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. georgebolwing (758 comments) says:

    As Grocho Marx once said, these are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Harriet (4,771 comments) says:

    When you march into Wellington under a Nazi flag and a Palestinian one[minto] then money and the GSCB are the least of your worries – as Mossad might say.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nookin (3,263 comments) says:

    Here is her stance on the Green Party.

    http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/03/26/laila-harre-goes-all-the-way-warning-politically-explicit/

    Two words stand out — conviction and trust. In dot.com? Yeah right!

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MPH (18 comments) says:

    It’s quite consistent to disagree with the rules of the game, but still play them to your advantage. Like people who don’t agree with interest-free student loans, but still don’t donate the interest they would have paid to the State.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. lastmanstanding (1,278 comments) says:

    Laila is a political whore. She will do what ever say what ever to get into power. A far LEFT nutwing of the worst type. Power crazy. Problem is if Internet/Mana can get a good portion of the 800,000 who didn’t vote in 2011 they could hold the balance of power come 20th September.

    If JK and the Nats have a brain they will be telling Maurice that Pakuranga is Colins seat and Maurice will be looked after post election with some nice well paid directorships etc if he retires gracefully.

    The Nats are going to need all the eats they can get.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. ross001 (192 comments) says:

    Amazing how flexible principles are, when you’re receiving the money

    So true. I imagine that if Oravida didn’t donate large sums of money to the National Party, Judith Collins wouldn’t have so much difficulty understanding what conflict of interest means.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Richard Hurst (831 comments) says:

    “What is Laila’s stance on capping political donations?”

    Whatever Kim Schmitz tells her of course.

    Ya Vol, Mein Fuhrer!

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nigel Kearney (969 comments) says:

    It’s quite consistent to disagree with the rules of the game, but still play them to your advantage.

    Absolutely right. It’s nonsense to make insinuations of hypocrisy against people just because they won’t voluntarily cripple themselves relative to their opponents.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. burt (8,189 comments) says:

    ross001

    Yes yes, play the apologist – they did it too card…. How mature you are…. I guess it’s OK with you that Winston used a secret trust after banging on for years about how corrupt National were for using secret trusts …. because others did it too.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. burt (8,189 comments) says:

    Nigel Kearney

    Absolutely right. It’s nonsense to make insinuations of hypocrisy against people just because they won’t voluntarily cripple themselves relative to their opponents.

    Right – so if you call your opponents out as cheats – then do the same thing your’re not a cheat because you might have strong principles but should never be expected to stand by them ????

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    It’s quite consistent to disagree with the rules of the game, but still play them to your advantage.

    Not when it is on a fundamental and defining point of your political philosophy, in Harre’s case her opposition to the supposed corrupting influence of big business on the political process!

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. maxwell (52 comments) says:

    If it is true that Laila Harre received trust income from her grandfather’s jandal sales, (trademarked Oct 1957),
    then isn’t it more than a little bit hypocritical to be taking money from Kim Dot Com,
    who allegedly has scant regard for anyone elses intellectual property. ?

    it’s OK when the left do it. Anything for The Cause. And if Dot Com gets to stay here and fund our next campaign, even better.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Harriet (4,771 comments) says:

    “…….It’s quite consistent to disagree with the rules of the game, but still play them to your advantage.

    Absolutely right. It’s nonsense to make insinuations of hypocrisy against people just because they won’t voluntarily cripple themselves relative to their opponents…..”

    She supports a cap on donations based soley upon the financial ability of her own voter base. Why should other parties cripple themselves by that?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. burt (8,189 comments) says:

    Harriet

    OK, good we are getting to the bottom of this – it’s not fair that her voter base hasn’t got deep pockets like other voter bases – so we must have the lowest common denominator… That’s socialism in it’s entirety isn’t it ?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Harriet (4,771 comments) says:

    Yep. Also brick walls and guns – but they don’t talk about that bit.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tom hunter (4,671 comments) says:

    PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:

    Laila Harre has announced that the Internet Party will launch its election campaign on July 14, 2014 with a televised round table debate involving herself, Matt McCarten, John Minto and Hone Hawawera.

    The topic of the debate will be: How Does Capitalism Continue To Survive?

    Ms Harre was in a buoyant mood when meeting with the media and insisted that even they fill their glasses, joking that, This Perrier-Jouet Belle Epoque won’t drink itself you know!”

    Talking with reporters Ms Harre said that,

    It’s important that this question be answered before we enter government after the September 20th election, otherwise we’ll be stuck with the status quo”

    When queried as to whether the debate could be focused sharply enough for a campaign launch Ms Harre responded that,

    “The fact that capitalism has not only survived but thrived despite over 100 years of opposition by we socialists is one of the great mysteries of our age, but clearly it’s related to individual greed. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

    Aside from Ms Harre other debate participants were reluctant to comment but when Mr McCarten was asked how capitalism could be successfully overcome when even the USSR had failed in the effort, he responded with a wide grin,

    “Well, the big difference here and in ’91 is you’ve got me”

    David Cunliffe was not available for comment, his press secretary saying only that he had been administered Xanax and was “resting quietly”

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Kimble (4,443 comments) says:

    Absolutely right. It’s nonsense to make insinuations of hypocrisy against people just because they won’t voluntarily cripple themselves relative to their opponents.

    And if your arguments were only that the rules were unfair, then it would be fine to use them when everyone else disagrees.

    But what if you claimed that the rules were immoral? That they put the political process at risk of capture by wealthy vested interests? And you equated them to out and out corruption?

    Now. Which of those arguments do you think the Greens and CTU have made?

    The question stands, what is Harre’s stance on that issue now? And what happened to make all her previous objections irrelevant?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. davidp (3,573 comments) says:

    We’ve obviously seen accommodations between coalition partners about seats in the past. National with ACT and Dunne. Labour with Anderton and the Greens in Coromandel. But this is the first time that we have ever seen a potential parliamentary seat sold for cash. It is the most corrupt electoral practice we’ve ever seen in NZ, even if it turns out to be legal. Who do we have to thank?… Harre, Dotcom, Harawira, and Edgeler for figuring out how to make corruption legal.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross001 (192 comments) says:

    Harre, Dotcom, Harawira, and Edgeler for figuring out how to make corruption legal.

    I suggest you have a lie down and a cup of tea. When it comes to corruption the Tories are in a league of their own.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. burt (8,189 comments) says:

    ross001

    They did it too but worse … that’s a change from simply – they did it too.

    Wow, so if corruption is totally unacceptable then by your standard it’s only unacceptable for the very worst offenders and for what you perceive as lesser offenders …. it’s completely OK because others are worse.

    Corruption is corruption – it’s not relative to others it is absolute in and of itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    I suggest you have a lie down and a cup of tea. When it comes to corruption the Tories are in a league of their own.

    Isn’t the argument of Harre, Harawira, Minto, Sykes et. al. that they represent a new and better way of doing politics, both quantitatively and qualitatively? So any appeal to the alleged failings as a “we aren’t as bad as our opponents” merely confirms the hypocrisy.

    In contrast, National has NEVER perceived any problem with donations by businesses to political parties.

    No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Daniel (200 comments) says:

    Laila has very strong principles…. and if you don’t like those you can buy her some new ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Elaycee (4,351 comments) says:

    ross69 / ross001 / whatever: When it comes to corruption the Tories are in a league of their own.

    What the hell has something about a UK political party got to do with this thread?

    C’mon Ross – buck up. Call the nurse. Some mean bugger has swapped your Prozac for Tic Tac’s…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ross12 (1,377 comments) says:

    Where’s Norman with his “democracy is for sale” with regard this deal. Haven’t heard anything and I don’t expect to hear a word from the hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    Laila so blatantly selling out to the fat German slug is almost as amusing as her fellow sell-out Hone attempting to say ‘Technology’ on Breakfast the other morning..

    The loopy left really are an unscrupulous and pathetic bunch…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. ross001 (192 comments) says:

    In contrast, National has NEVER perceived any problem with donations by businesses to political parties

    All parties accept donations from businesses. If you have any evidence of law breaking by KDC in this regard, you should hand it to the Electoral Commission.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Kimbo (858 comments) says:

    All parties accept donations from businesses. If you have any evidence of law breaking by KDC in this regard, you should hand it to the Electoral Commission.

    I love it!

    Don’t you mean “All animals are equal…but some are more equal than others”?

    When National receive donations (e.g., Oravida, via Capital Club) it is labelled corruption. Although, strangely, the harpies and harridans crying foul (like you! What was it you wrote? Oh, yes, that’s right: “When it comes to corruption the Tories are in a league of their own.”) doing so never seem to take your advice…notwithstanding the bat-shit mad Penny Bright.

    Obviously when Internet-Mana do it…they are more equal than others.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. davidp (3,573 comments) says:

    ross001>I suggest you have a lie down and a cup of tea. When it comes to corruption the Tories are in a league of their own.

    The Internet-Mana situation is like Oravida giving National $500k, and in return National popping an Oravida director on their list at position number two. If they did that then everyone would (quite justifiably) go ape shit. And yet a convicted fraudster with no interest in politics until he realised that politics might save him from extradition has essentially bought his minion the number two position on the Mana list.

    So what is the Dotcom plan? Harre puts aside her principles and works for a guy who doesn’t pay his workers consistently, and has a fetish for Nazi memorabilia. The Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana-Internet coalition squeezes out a win in September. But Mana-Internet demands ministerial positions for Harawira and Harre, and Harre has to be Minister of Justice. Cunliffe folds. Harre overrides the court and cancels Dotcom’s extradition. After that, Harre and the Internet Party are pretty much surplus to Dotcom. He can cut off funding, and get back to making shite albums, eating, and rooting nannies. Harre picks up her MP salary for a few years, until voters ditch her in 2017. Like they did in 2002. It’s like NZ fell in to a time warp for 15 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross411 (433 comments) says:

    ross001 (37 comments) says:
    May 29th, 2014 at 4:26 pm
    In contrast, National has NEVER perceived any problem with donations by businesses to political parties

    All parties accept donations from businesses. If you have any evidence of law breaking by KDC in this regard, you should hand it to the Electoral Commission.

    You’re handing out political advice? Great!

    If an unnamed lead politician of a political party puts on a fake accent in order to pander to voters, assuming they are dumb enough to ignore he is a hypocrite “rich prick” who disdains “rich pricks”, and his wife hold a fund raiser Helen Clark attended while prime minister in return for helping her get a cushy UN post one hand washes the other style, what should we do?

    This is some f*cked up shit! This unnamed politician has been involved in some right cunliffing, and it shouldn’t stand, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. eszett (2,392 comments) says:

    Amazing how flexible principles are, when you’re receiving the money.

    Wouldn’t the same apply to you David, who is suddenly complaining about one person using his money to buy political influence?

    I am pretty concerned that someone like dotcom can turn our political system into a farce with his money.

    But tell me then, do you support limits on donations to political parties?

    Lalia Harre can still have the opinion that political donations should be limited, but as long as it doesn’t apply to all parties universally, why should she handicap herself while all others can do whatever they like.

    Funnily enough, if Lalia Harre’s suggestion had been adopted, then there wouldn’t be a dotcom problem to begin with. Maybe something to think about after all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Elaycee (4,351 comments) says:

    Question: What is Laila’s stance on capping political donations?

    Answer: Whatever the current tenant in the Chrisco mansion says it will be….

    Sorted.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (869 comments) says:

    Lying Laila has sold her soul to the devil. So nothing matters to her any more. If FatCon says jump, Laila will ask how high!!

    In fact, ACT, UF and Conservatives should form an alliance so that their vote is not wasted and combined they could bring in 5 MPs to support John Key and keep the evil forces out of power.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Rich Prick (1,659 comments) says:

    $4,000,000 and counting. Labour and the Greens must feeling just a little sick about now. It’s all a bit karma-eske.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    Yes, a cap of $5,000 multiplied by 50!

    Regardless of what she says, Harre, the deluded left-winger, is nothing but a pawn in the pocket of the German fraudster.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Scott1 (504 comments) says:

    I suppose the best way to make a country to create a law to close a loophole (or whatever you might see it as) is to abuse it as blatantly as possible.

    She is already on the record today with the line that national has been manipulating MMP so she is going to unashamedly join the fun.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Viking2 (11,346 comments) says:

    Manaolo,
    Harre is no porn. very screwable if you like demanding women.
    She is without doubt her own person, always has been even if we don’t agree with her. Very determined as well.In fact all the things that plenty of Nats could aspire to be but will never be. So we have strength and conviction against willy wafter’s who consider they have a right to rule.
    Interesting times.
    Pity we couldn’t have some women on the right as forceful. (Never be allowed in the Nats. of course.)Then the limp wristers that we have might get their lazy minds and arses into the job.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    The third-rate lawyer, the incompetent Greg Presland, aka Micky Savage, muses about Harre at The sub-Standard:
    So on election night a bunch of us will think that Dotcom’s involvement was either an act of genius or the wasted trashing of our democracy by a large German with a huge ego. Time will tell …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. SPC (5,537 comments) says:

    Some support a flat rate of tax of 20% and yet they pay a higher rate.

    National supported the MMP status quo, National supported no caps on donations – it’s their tax rates we pay and its their rules by which parties operate.

    Expecting those who wanted to pay less tax to withhold their full payment or those who argue for a change to MMP and funding to act in self restraint while others do not is a strange argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.