Donating to counter Dotcom

June 21st, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

A businessman has given $175,000 to the Conservative Party, and intends to donate more – partly because he is infuriated by ’s attempt to buy political influence.

, a former National Party supporter and donor, is the only substantial donor to the Conservatives apart from party leader Colin Craig. Craig has donated nearly $2.5m to the party since 2011.

Kim Dotcom’s political activities “really got up my nose,” Day told The Dominion Post this week.

“There’s a guy who has a single axe to grind because he tried to, I feel, bribe his way into New Zealand by buying politicians and that didn’t work, they went doggo on him.

“And now he’s all-out to get rid of [John] Banks and [John] Key and he’s prepared to throw $3 million at it . . .”

A very perceptive man.

Internet leader Laila Harre has, however, defended Dotcom’s $3.25m donation to the Internet Party, saying the German tycoon was giving a gift to progressive politics.

I can’t work out if Laila actually believes what she says. He’s a former donor to John Banks, is a convicted criminal, a multi-millionairre who faced claims from staff he didn’t even pay minimum wage – and she really thinks that the reasons he is donating so much money is because he believes in progressive politics and taxing the rich more???

No one can be that naive, can they?

No Internet Party MP would take part in a future government’s decision on Dotcom’s extradition to the United States, she said.

Yet the party disappears if he is extradited, and they’ll be propping up a Labour-led Government. Pretty obvious that the consequences of extradition will be to remove a support party for Labour, so of course that will place pressure on the Government.

Can one really imagine the Internet Party MPs sitting their in Parliament, doing nothing, as their funder is extradited?

Most of all, does anyone thing Dotcom would be donating all this money, if he wasn’t facing extradition?

Tags: ,

35 Responses to “Donating to counter Dotcom”

  1. kowtow (7,625 comments) says:

    …former National Party supporter and donor…….now supports the Cons…..

    Countdown to nasskar ‘s arrival on the launch pad with a “nutter” remark!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,795 comments) says:

    Of course it ain’t DotKrim’s money. Neither were the proceeds of the Great Train Robbery Ronnie Biggs’ money.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Rex Widerstrom (5,261 comments) says:

    Giving large sums of money to Colin Craig because you don’t like Kim Dotcom makes as much sense as organising an air drop of botulism because you fear an outbreak of the plague.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (7,625 comments) says:

    Donation of big money ,out in the open, everyone aware of who and why……..

    ……goodness what a novelty!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. backster (2,077 comments) says:

    Dotcon has probably also donated a large sum to Labour but there is no rec ord of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (7,619 comments) says:

    Bottom line on this is that Dotcom was the victim of illegal spying and a SWAT raid on his family home that was a disgrace in a free country as NZ purports to be.

    I don’t care if he’s fat.

    I don’t care if he is German.

    I don’t care if he is personally the most repulsive person on earth.

    He was the victim of significant govt over reach and illegal activities resulting from the National Party’s unhealthy alliance with Obama and the Hollywood donors that fund him.

    How would all of the Key sycophants who frequent this blog like it if they and their wives and children had suffered the same treatment? Had helicopters land on the front lawn and swat teams strutting around the family home like damn Nazis?

    All possessions “confiscated” on presumption of guilt?

    All money taken from bank accounts on the same presumption?

    All to keep Hollywood libs like George Clooney and Meryl Streep in the style their accustomed to?

    To hell with that. The govt broke the law and there is a consequence.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 23 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Tarquin North (132 comments) says:

    Laila always was a few sandwiches short of a picnic, the number of parties she has been in says it all.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. secondcumming (90 comments) says:

    This whole donation thing is becoming so bloody confusing for an average kiwi voter like me. Once the choice was really only National or Labor – now I’m not sure whether I’m voting for a fat German or a skinny Chinaman.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ShawnLH (3,396 comments) says:

    Good on him! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jackinabox (586 comments) says:

    “a convicted criminal, a multi-millionaire” Talking about John Banks again?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chuck Bird (4,682 comments) says:

    “Laila always was a few sandwiches short of a picnic”

    That is why I refer to her a Lala.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (6,422 comments) says:

    Tarquin: Well said…It’s a good thing the stupid bitch isn’t a man, so she doesn’t have to look herself in the mirror each morning…

    I think I might offer my services to IM to help draft their law and order policy…After all I believe in progressively longer sentences for violent criminals, and they apparently are a “progressive” party…Whaddya reckon?

    Actually I’d be interested in knowing what their law and order policy IS if they have one…Marae based justice for everyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. eszett (2,334 comments) says:

    So donating large sums of money to the Conservatives is okay, because donating large sums to the Internet Party is a fucking outrage.

    And donating large sums of money to possibly forgo an extradition is bad, but donating large sums of money to a party promising tax cuts which would hugely benefit the donors is okay.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fentex (867 comments) says:

    I can’t work out if Laila actually believes what she says. [...] No one can be that naive, can they?

    She doesn’t have to be naive to intercept his wealth, redirect it to her ambitions and accurately call it “a gift to progressive politics.”

    That could be perfectly true without any naivete involved, just exploitation of Dotcom (which seems entirely fair for a progressive enterprise).

    Of course it means anyone who hoped for an Internet, Intellectual Privileges and Trade issues focussed party needs to recognize that’s gone and isn’t being funded by Dotcom.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Gulag1917 (657 comments) says:

    Edward Snowden
    Julian Assange
    Kim Dotcom
    See a pattern?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mike tan (433 comments) says:

    Wow, did i just read that post correctly in that Mr. Baiter seemingly supports Dotcom?

    I would never have guessed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Other_Andy (2,292 comments) says:

    Gulag1917 says:

    Edward Snowden
    Julian Assange
    Kim Dotcom
    See a pattern?

    Yep.
    The names are getting shorter…

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    >“And now he’s all-out to get rid of [John] Banks and [John] Key and he’s prepared to throw $3 million at it . . .”

    In the Samuel Jackson film SWAT, the main villain is a slimy European dude who is on the run from police in several countries. When captured, he shouts out “I will geeeve 100 meeeelion dollars to whoever can get me out of this”, setting up events for the rest of the film. So it isn’t too dissimilar to Dotcom who has offered $5million to anyone who can keep him out of prison. Except the villain in SWAT was well dressed and looked after himself, and was also offering twenty times the Dotcom save-me rate.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Well I never. Red has just thoroughly convinced me to vote for Kim.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    “The names are getting shorter…”

    Nope…….Max Keiser. what a hero!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Gulag1917 (657 comments) says:

    NSA Targets’ Names Listed: ‘BIGGEST’ LEAK. Is YOUR Name On Obama’s Hit List?
    http://beforeitsnews.com/spies-and-intelligence/2014/05/breaking-nsa-targets-names-listed-biggest-revelation-2446344.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. lurcher1948 (55 comments) says:

    Actually I’d be interested in knowing what their law and order policy IS if they have one…Marae based justice for everyone?

    Mr Garrett our resident known criminal posts on IM law policies, what a laugh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross411 (220 comments) says:

    lurcher1948 (13 comments) says:
    June 21st, 2014 at 4:14 pm
    Actually I’d be interested in knowing what their law and order policy IS if they have one…Marae based justice for everyone?

    Mr Garrett our resident known criminal posts on IM law policies, what a laugh

    A runner who has lost his leg can still give advice on running. And to his advantage, after the loss, also hopping. Just because someone makes a mistake does not mean they can be written off any time you feel like it. That’s just weak opportunism on your part, and taking easy shots.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rex Widerstrom (5,261 comments) says:

    mike tan says:

    Wow, did i just read that post correctly in that Mr. Baiter seemingly supports Dotcom?

    I would never have guessed.

    Supporting him against a massive over-reach of coercive government powers is one thing, supporting his unwanted and unwarranted interference in our political process is another.

    I would never have guessed so many Kiwiblog commenters can’t separate one from the other – and from disapproval of his alleged lawlessness – and maintain a consist principled stance.

    As Redbaiter says, would you be happy if the tactics used by the police against Dotcom were used against you? The United States – which, ironically, has better civil rights protections than NZ will ever have – has a doctrine called “fruit of the poisoned tree”. That would disallow the evidence gathered in the raids against Dotcom’s home, even if it proved he was dining regularly on orphans. And it would do so not to protect him, but to protect you, or me, or someone far more worthy than Dotcom.

    Because the ends don’t always justify the means, we must ensure the means are legal, just and fair.

    But because NZ is prepared to over-ride centuries of established Western tradition on civil rights – from the US Constitution to the Magna Carta to the French Revolution – to grovel at the feet of a few Hollywood types, the US government isn’t above profiting from the lack of the very protections it’s obliged, by many a Supreme Court ruling, to offer its own citizens.

    I can’t imagine Red supporting much, if any, of what Dotcom stands for. But I salute him on a stance that puts principles ahead of prejudice.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Like Michelle of the resistance Laila is probably hoping there will be a few dollars spare zat she can spend at ze hairdresser’s! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Duxton (581 comments) says:

    Gulag1917 says:

    Edward Snowden
    Julian Assange
    Kim Dotcom
    See a pattern?

    Yep – several

    1. Their first names are all wussy, so they were probably bullied at school by guys with real boys’ names like Brian, Dave and Steve.
    2. They are all egotistical arse-holes.
    3. They all see themselves as demi-gods.
    4. They are all wanted in the US.
    5. None of them live in their own homes.

    Or did you have something else in mind? Like…..say….Snowden and Dotcom are both serial rapists as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. mike tan (433 comments) says:

    Great comment Rex. I am aware of and agree with the approach you outline, I just pinned Redbaiter as the pro-big government type of person (e.g. his love of Singapore) so was pleasantly surprised to see that he cares for civil liberties.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. jackinabox (586 comments) says:

    “Supporting him against a massive over-reach of coercive government powers is one thing, supporting his unwanted and unwarranted interference in our political process is another.”

    Be nice to have his money, brains and determination to make the bastards pay.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. lurcher1948 (55 comments) says:

    A runner who has lost his leg can still give advice on running. And to his advantage, after the loss, also hopping. Just because someone makes a mistake does not mean they can be written off any time you feel like it. That’s just weak opportunism on your part, and taking easy shots.

    such nice words,could be USED AS a CV,nah CRIMINALS WHO HAVE DONE IT ONCE could do it again GARRETT who seems to be the voice of law and order on KB is a joke (lets see if i can get away with it right DAVID) David posts,and the right lap it up
    ps 65yo working AND NO CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS,rubbish me posters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nasska (10,674 comments) says:

    ….”he cares for civil liberties.”…..

    Only the ones he personally agrees with.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    I hope Laila never invites him to Bellamys if she gets to be an MP. I should imagine his farts would trigger the alarm systems! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. goldnkiwi (993 comments) says:

    Does Bellamy’s serve saurkraut? Hopefully never :)

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

    We must do whatever is necessary to rid the country of this overweight piece of excrement. He is a criminal, with a list of convictions, and should be extradited immediately. If he were a poor PI with that form he would not get in . . . get the bastard out NOW!

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

    goldnkiwi: He’ll be a sour kraut on becoming a gang member’s bitch in a US pen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Daniel (170 comments) says:

    I think Dotcom would still have donated to form a leftwing party even if he wasn’t facing extradition. He applied for residency in 2010 and I’m sure we can all recall at the 2011 election – when he wasn’t facing extradition and had even more cash available than he does now – he pumped millions in to forming that leftwing advocacy party… oh hang on, he never did that at all, it’s only now he is facing extradition that he has bought Laila Harre and Mana… oh how odd, you would sort of think he would have done the Internet Party thing in 2011 right…

    I also wonder if Laila Harre approached Dotcom, or the other way around. Surely if what the Internet Party stands is genuine “progressive” politics Laila would have contacted Dotcom to make her availability known, right? Or did Dotcom approach with a fat cheque? I think I already know the answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.