NZ Herald on Electoral Finance issues

The NZ Herald looks at the issues paper on electoral finance:

Like it or not, the financing of politics is up for public discussion again. This time the trigger is not a sudden, vengeful, partisan bill but a reasonably phrased paper from the Justice Ministry that invites comment on many issues that need to be resolved after the previous Government's .

A bit of a difference!

There are many inequalities that bear on an election contest, wealth is just one. The discussion paper mentions that restrictions on campaign do not extend, for example, to the labour of supporters. Parties are required to account for all goods or services provided at less than normal charges, except for those who volunteer time and energy to staff phones, distribute flyers and the like.

Why is that form of donation excluded? If one party attracts more people with time to offer rather than money, that is an advantage every bit as valuable. Enforced electoral equality is absurd. Strictly speaking parties would have to be regulated to control advantages of , debating skill and good looks, too.

The Herald raises very valid points. We had a similiar dicussion at a seminar on Friday put on by Transparency International and the VUW Institute of Policy Studies.

I quipped that if we weer serious about “fairness” in electoral contests, then something should be done about the fact I am most unlikely to be elected President of the United States. One of the Professors though me not being a US citizen would be a bigger issue, but I was referring to the fact that in the presidential elections since 1900, the taller candidate won 23 out of 28 times – a statistically significant result.

I believe we do need some around electoral finance, but we need to remember spending has a low correlation to votes.

This is not to argue that no rules on party finance are needed, but to suggest that the subject is not quite as important as left-wing activists and academics believe. Our elections do not need the level of financial regulation they receive. Legislators should be looking to greatly simplify the rules of donation and disclosure and do away with as many as possible.

It is almost as if the Herald was at the seminar on Friday, as I proposed that an addiional principle for the law review should be “Simplicity” – that people should not have to consult a lawyer to get involved in an election. The in the room looked most upset at such a proposition 🙂

Donations of more than $1000 to a party or a candidate within a three-year parliamentary term should have to be disclosed, and before the election, not months afterward. Parties should have to raise their campaign funds by an agreed date and make their disclosure in good time for voters to consider it. Otherwise, what is the point?

I agree with a lot of what is here. Disclosure should be before, not after elections. The cap should be calculated over the three year term. But the level proposed is ridicolously low – currently you can give $10,000 a year or $30,000 over three years without public disclosure. That level is about right – more than that and it is possible one could be buying influence. Even at $10,000 a year or $30,000 over three years – that is still a figure of 1% of a party's total income.

So $1,000 is far too low, but apart from that I agree with the Herald.

The discussion paper permits the restrictions to be questioned, too, and the public financing of party commercials. The public never had much say in the creeping regulation of our politics. Now we do.

If we neglect this discussion paper we leave the work to diligent political souls with often wildly inflated fears of the private wealth. Legislators need to hear that an effective rule of disclosure is really the key to a fair contest.

Transparency is key.

Comments (27)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment