Political finance seminar
Went to a political finance seminar yesterday at Vic Uni organised by Institute of Policy Studies and Transparency International. I presented the Green position on campaign finance reform - which includes getting rid of anonymous donations above $1000, stopping donations from overseas (except for citizens), rolling disclosure of donations in lead up to election, putting a cap onthe amount that any one person or entity can donate in a year ($35,000), keep the campaign spending caps but extend the period out over the year of the election, some disclosure rules and spending limits on non-political party actors, partial public funding. These are pretty similar to the changes being proposed by the Coalition for Open Government.
The aim of these kinds of changes is weight the democratic process in favour of reason against money. Elections should be a contest of ideas not a contest of who has the most money.
We already have a cap on spending in the campaign which means that we don’t have the continual arms race that they get in Oz and the US with continual increases in spending. However, at the last election, for the first time, both large parties hit the cap. The danger now is that they will direct their supporters to give money to non-party actors to campaign on their behalf. Which is why we need some kind of limits and transparency on the interventions of non-party actors. Non-party actors are vital to the campaign and to democracy but they shouldn’t overwhelm the parties, like the Exclusive Brethren tried to do last time.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
I really like these ideas. I feel that a move in this direction should produce a far greater clarity and fairness than we have experienced in my (long) lifetime. Joy.
June 16th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Russ
It sounds like you want to silence anybody who does not like the Greens.
The EB happen to believe in what the Nat’s stand for (actually I think it is more that they are steadfastly against what the Greens and Labour stand for) this does not make them wrong nor does it mean that their support should count as part of the National party spending cap.
Would you apply the same rules of Greenpeace said a few good words about the Green party?, are the unions full page advertisements going to count toward the Labour party spending cap?
There should be no public funding of electoral campaigns, I do not want my money used by the Greens or the Labour party to tell me why I should continue to pay such high taxes so people who do not want to work can sit on their backsides all day.
June 16th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I disagree with you Big Bro
As a taxpayer, I am happy for tax money to be used to create more transparency in our elections (transparency is the keyword here). At least trade unions are open about their funding of political parties. If Exclusive Brethren want to contribute to a political party then they should do it openly.
You promote that all individuals/organisations/companies, of any political preference, are able to secretly throw money at political parties, possibly giving them a huge pool of money to sway voters in elections. This is unacceptable as a worker in New Zealand, and an example of the word “corruption” that you throw around so easily.
June 17th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Time for taxpayer funded elections
Let me just say it is apparent the time for tax payer funded election is long over due. I know what you’re thinking “my taxes are too high now” The reason you’re taxes are too high is our Politicians are for sale to the highest bidder i.e.: Phiser, GE, Ford, and GM you get the point. Republicans say “Money is Free Speech” I say Bull S**t. If each politician received 10,000 dollars of tax payer money and 5 free TV or radio spots per election, for the first time in our history the (crooks) Politicians would work for us “WE THE PEPOLE” and not forPHISER, GE, FORD, GM, EXXON, you get the point. This system works in Europe. If any one reading this think the Politicians are working for us “WE THE PEPOLE” and not there corporate masters you’re drinking the cool aid and need to wake up.
June 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Russel,
I’m curious. What do you think of the Republic fo Korea model where the only way to donate to a politicalparty is by donation to a blind trust, which then passes the money on to the party anonymously? I think it is an idea that has merit, I am yet to see if talked about with reference to New Zealand.
Of course, it doesn’t get around the possibility of a group (perhaps of the shadowy religious sort) printing pusedo-party-affiliated materials, but then neither do any of the Green proposals do they?
Joe Connell
June 17th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Sorry BB
The same rules for all and IMHO no private funding of elections at all either. The problem you face is that you aren’t talking about freedom of speech but freedom of advertising, and the advertising is NOT free. It costs and it costs heavily.
If the messages of the actual party is not able to be heard over the noise that the wealthy can easily make, then the party is not heard. That applies to Greens, ACT and LibertariaNZ.
This isn’t about shutting people up but about making the contest more about ideas and ideals. Maybe you have a better idea, but on current form it seems unlikely. In order to make the election properly democratic it has to be immune to the influences both of great wealth and great power (ie. incumbency). That’s hard to achieve… but it gets a lot harder if you don’t control the money.
respectfully
BJ
June 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Which, BB, is exactly why we need to curb government spending on TV advertising. $600,000 in two pamphlet runs by the EB versus a $15 million dollar TV campaign on working for families (which Labour then weaves into its own policy branding for the election) doesn’t equate.
And how about the media hyping different stories to different levels - free advertising if you can convince the media to spin a controversy.
June 17th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Sorry - meant to address my comment to BJ, not BB. But anyone is free to disagree with me
June 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I continue to believe that greater tax payer funding of elections, with strict accountablity, and total transperancy would allow for a much fairer system.
The problem I had with the EB last time was their attempt at anonimity. The Unions who support Labour are upfront with their ownership of advertisements.
Speech is not universally free if it is made more available to the wealthy and or powerful.
Perhaps the election of George W Bush indicates what money and power can do. Joy.
June 17th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I like the idea of groups like the Exclusive Brethren, the trade unions, Greenpeace etc continuing to be able to publicise their views, but have a very low limit on the amount of money they’re allowed to spend on doing so, so that they can compete more evenly on the value of their ideas rather than who has the biggest chequebook. It would also be good to have a really low spending limit for parties, to encourage them to use campaign methods like street stalls, public meetings and door-knocking which can add depth and detail to the debate, rather than big-money solutions like billboards and TV ads which encourage simplification.
June 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Zen
You can’t do anything much about the reporter’s biases. There is no control of the media that can be accepted. I don’t care much for one-sided reporting but I know of no cure.
As for the use of TV advertising to publicize government programs, that’s got pluses and minuses. I personally like the idea of limiting it…. even though I don’t like the chances that people will learn about the programs without such publicity.
What I don’t like is the unbalanced influence of private money in public affairs.
respectfully
BJ
June 18th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Seems to miss what we and there are many who support a system that NO CORPERATION, NO INDIVIDUAL, NO SPECIAL INTREST, NO PACS NO MONEY!! Except 10,000.00 of our money (we the people) NO OTHER MONEY AT ALL that is the only way it would work. And especially no church synagogue temple no morale Minority. The founders were clear of separation of church and state and for all the bumper sticker morons the separation of church and state was not to protect the churches from the state, but to protect the Republic from the Imaginary guy in the sky. The Imaginary guy in the sky should be a personal thing not a government thing. We are the laughing stock of the world. We are turning away from Science and moving to a theocracy!! We all should be very scared! Don’t get me wrong if the guy in the sky works for you and helps you get through the day cool, but that you chose, the rest of us villagers can make up are own mind.
June 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
patrick, i think america is in much more danger than we are of becoming a theocracy. look at how well christian parties do in this country, united future is the highest ranking and look at how many seats it has.
June 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I would be in favour of a funding scheme which saw the parties funded with taxpayers dollars, prehaps the funding could work through a formula which distributes money based on seats or vote percentage with a default value that insures even the small parties get a chunk of cash, prehaps a formula like: Funding = Base Rate + (Percentage Vote * Repesentitive Rate), for example F=10,000 + (10 * 1000).
another attractive alternative would be any group which wishes to donate to a praty must donate the money to an intermediate state administered trust of some sort along with which party it is for, a third of the donation could go dirrectly to the party they choose and the rest could be divided among parties based on percentage vote.
Or better yet, both systems togehter.
As for the percentage vote, prehaps a nation-wide ballot at the end of the 2nd year to judge where the approx percentages are, that also allows greater chance for the members of the smaller more motivated members to get out and put their votes in to get more funding for their parties as opposed to the people who are not likley to make the effort and are likley to vote for the larger parties.
Campeigning for political parties by third party groups would be quite hard to control, all that can be done is a slap on the wrist realy. BJ is right, money buys you a larger voice, but those groups and the individuals in them still have a right to voice their opinons and do what they can for their party, it just means that the smaller parties and those without large monetry backing will have to make their voices heard by a different means, changing the pitch of your voice always works, the small parties will have to shine through innovation and policy, that is after all ment to be the Kiwi way isint it?
Sapient
June 18th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I feel that the system is so convoluted now the formula again it’s this simple candidate A wants to run for the Senate. He files and receives 10,000.00 of tax payer money and He or she gets 5 commercials TV or radio the citizens one the air ways its time for us to take them back. That’s it the candidate can not take any thing from any corporation, person, Pac nothing than and only then will they work for us (WE THE PEPOLE) so who’s with me let’s start a movement. If not now when? If not us WHO? The more things and closes and formulas leave room for the evil to do its work. No formulas keep it simple stupid, just like the military do not use formulas lyres figure and figures lie. Then politician will spend 100 % of there time working for us WE THE PEPOLE because we give them the money they don’t have to fund raise and sell there sole. NO FORMULAS! Anyone who wants to run regardless of party everyone 10,000.00 third party forth party not party any American that has something to give screw parties that’s what they do to us let take our country back now!
June 18th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
particknjohn,
Is it possible in your comments to insert some spaces, commas plus use shorter sentences?
Will make your comments easier to read and understand.
Cheers
June 18th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
umm, i agree with the no money from overseas but yea…
i dont think i will be joining the movement though, sounds half like your trying to start a revolution against the NZ reigeme, no point in revolting if you dont have a better alternative, i quite like MMP and democracy, bloody hard to improve on. if you come up with a good alternitive i will be behind you, eaither that or ill act like an american politician and steal your ideas, i can think of a few improvements for our system, but most are just superficial.
are you saying each candidate should get 10, 000 or each party? if party then thats way too small, if per candidate, what limits how many candidates a party can run? neither way will lead to the politicians being more for the people, both will lead to very large coruption, or atleast so i think.
you do know this is a New Zealand site dont you? we dont have senate, we are single tier and our executive is drawn from the house, not seperate to it.
i think the above addresses what your saying, but im not sure, really hard to read, as for ´keep it simple stupid, that applies to milatary tactics, becasue they have to be so easily adaptable, something like party funding is an entirly different matter.
Sapient
June 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
The problem you face is that you aren’t talking about freedom of speech but freedom of advertising, and the advertising is NOT free. It costs and it costs heavily.
Think libre, not gratis. Free speech means the right to express yourself; it has nothing to do with the monetary cost of doing so.
I’m still saddened that the Greens are supporting the idea of rationing political expression, in any form. Usually you guys are strong defenders of free expression - why do you view political expression as fundamentally different from any other kind?
June 18th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
not speaking as a green, oviously, but…
because other parties have more supporters with bigger wallets :P, but also for the potential buying of politicians as is seeminly so common with the senators of the US
June 18th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
# Duncan Bayne Says:
June 18th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
> Think libre, not gratis. Free speech means the right to express yourself; it has nothing to do with the monetary cost of doing so.
The librety to advertise is already restricted by the fact that it costs money, and if you don’t have enough money you don’t have the liberty to advertise widely. Therefore I think its prefectly logical to restrict the amount of advertising time one can buy. This means that there is less disparity in the amount of exposure different groups get, so they can compete more on the basis of the quality of their ideas. Competing on the basis of the quality of ideas as judged by whoever is listening is precisely the idea that motivated the idea of freedom of speech when the term was first coined.
June 18th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
kahikatea,
Let me get this straight: although free speech is a right (I presume you don’t deny this?), you’re all for curtailing it in the case of some individuals, so that no-one gets more of it than others?
The thing about rights is that they are inviolable. So long as I am not violating the rights of others with my expression (e.g. libel), there can be no justifiable limit to that expression. The same applies to other rights - such as freedom of religion, freedom of association, etc. etc.
I’d be really quite interested to know how you define a right, when you seem happy to abrogate that right in the case of an individual who has a greater ability to exercise it that others. Or is it that you think freedom of expression is a special, ‘less inviolable’ right???
June 18th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
DB :
Regulating the quantity of political advertising is not a restriction on freedom of speech. Nobody is restricting anyone from saying anything, or expressing any particular view. Whether or not particular organisations have the right to shove it down people’s throats ten thousand times a day is what we’re talking about.
There is indeed a higher ideal than the sort of quantitative “free speech” you’re talking about. It’s called democracy.
If you want an example of how restricted vs unlimited funding and spending affects the quality of democratic representation, you could do a comparative study of western Europe vs. the USA. I favour the European model.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:02 am
we all have the freedom to say whatever we want, however that freedom does not include the freedom to broadcast it over the airwaves, everyone can say what they want, but by allowing one or more parties or candidates to dominate the airwaves, youa re effectively denying the less wealthy candidates/parties their freedom of speech, by drowning out what they are trying to say. think of it as a room where one person says “pizza is good” once, in a fairly quiet voice, while there is another person yelling at the top of their voice “pizza is aweful”. who do you think will get their message across, and who do you think will be ignored?
June 19th, 2007 at 12:08 am
alistair,
Regulating the quantity of political advertising is not a restriction on freedom of speech
Yes it is, explicitly. If you’re preventing me from publishing material in support of or in opposition to a particular politician or party, then you’re preventing me from expressing myself.
Let me spell it out to you: you want to send people to jail for printing (or broadcasting) forbidden political material.
I am so tempted to Godwinate this thread right here.
There is indeed a higher ideal than the sort of quantitative “free speech” you’re talking about. It’s called democracy.
In other words - the will of the many (democracy) trumps the rights of the individual (free speech). Nice. Remind me to never get on the wrong side of you & your mob.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:12 am
davey,
What I said to alistair. Plus, no-one has the right to airtime - just because you have something you want to broadcast, doesn’t mean that anyone is obliged to provide you with the money to do it, or the airtime.
Here’s a hint: if your ‘right’ requires someone else be robbed or enslaved to provide it, it’s probably not a right.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:55 am
Let me spell it out to you: you want to send people to jail for printing (or broadcasting) forbidden political material.
No, I want the political party which gets 6% of the vote, which defends the poor and is not friendly to big business, and runs cake stalls to raise money for its campaigns, to get the same access to media as a hypothetical party that gets 6% of the vote, promotes the Business Round Table agenda and is rolling in campaign donations from big rich companies.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:55 am
When politicians do anything controversial they are fond of telling us that the electorate will judge them on their performance at the next election. Then immediately before each election they unleash a flood of advertising intended to prevent this judgement from happening.
Instead of demanding that taxpayers fund this cycnical deception Parliament should prohibit all political and government service print and electronic media advertising prior to an election and let candidates and parties stand on their records instead of theie chequebooks.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Dunk wants a US type political system. To get elected, you need lots of money for your campaign. To get lots of money for your campaign, you parrot the talking points of the lobbyists. And when you get elected, you gratefully promote the legislation they bought and paid for.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I want the political party which gets 6% of the vote, which defends the poor and is not friendly to big business, and runs cake stalls to raise money for its campaigns, to get the same access to media as a hypothetical party that gets 6% of the vote
And there are two ways of achieving that: by making up the difference in budget with taxpayers money (and that might be a lot of difference in the case of the minor parties), or - more likely - threatening those who publish or broadcast more than their ‘fair share’ with jail.
Care to explain how else you’d do it? The way I see it, you don’t have any real alternative but to throw people in jail for exceeding their quota of political expression. Doesn’t sound like a particularly liberal policy to me.
Dunk wants a US type political system.
Not exactly - although I want to keep many of the best aspects of their system. See A Constitution for New Freeland to see exactly what it is that I want.
Remember the words of P J O’Rourke … “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”
Parliament should prohibit all political and government service print and electronic media advertising prior to an election
No - but politicians should be liable in court to the same extent that any other people running advertisements are. In other words, if they lie, they should be punished for fraud.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:09 am
Duncan
your constitution makes for interesting reading. you talk about mobs yet you also want the right to form “private militia”. you want the right to be bigoted as well, “while the government itself shall discriminate only on the basis of merit, it shall make no law restricting the right of an individual to discriminate on any basis whatsoever.” And i presume that people’s rights to practise their religious/cultural traditions wouldn’t include anything that harmed others, yes? I see you want no weapons control as well, the right to bear arms and carry explosives, make it easy for the criminals. and no law to be allowed which requires anyone to child-proof these weapons. also an end to all drug control as well. some very interesting things which you want dunc.
somehow i dont think that your constitution will be accepted by the masses anytime soon.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:20 am
Dunk : “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.�
Well that certainly is the basis of the US system, and will be the inevitable consequence in NZ if we were ever daft enough to adopt Perigo’s constitution.
On the other hand, if we take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you are advocating that there should be no laws against buying or selling anything, including people : i.e. slavery should be legal, right?
As to “throwing people in jail for exceeding their quota of political expression” — that’s your strawman buddy, I wouldn’t touch it with an electric cattle prod. Generally hefty fines are the best response for that sort of abuse of the electoral rules.
June 19th, 2007 at 4:31 am
The #1 issue is not parties, but making sure all the policy issues are accessible and clearly and honestly explained. Then we only need to know where parties stand.
jh
June 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Duncan
If we all have the same amount of money to advertise that’s cool. We don’t so the difference between free speech and freedom to advertise becomes important. I am not sure how to take your comment exactly… since I don’t see ANY other way to manage an election fairly.
Basically I see the democratic election process as a contest of ideas and ideals. To the extent that it becomes anything else it is a perversion of the process. The contestants are parties, who have to present their case to the voters.
Other people cannot present the parties case to the voters, they can ONLY misrepresent those parties… by definition.
Which is why I am inclined to regard all externally generated advertising as wholly unfit for inclusion in the election campaign.
During the campaign I would restrict the parties involved to specific advertising budgets stated in terms of air time on the networks and radio. I’d also want to see debates, real debates, between the principals.
My point is that I do not want to hear what the Business Council thinks, or what the EB think or what the Unions think or what Greenpeace thinks…. I want to hear the parties themselves make their best case. Period. The election campaign should not be long or expensive under such terms. The silence around it would help to concentrate the voters on each party’s message.
Which may be an issue in terms of free-speech since it does force a short period of silence on those who are not actually running in the election, but it would also be a wonderful change from the incessant bombardment of advertising… and it has the benefit of being simple. It would be (I think) very difficult to get around. You don’t have to worry about politicians being bought with campaign contributions either.
Hmmm… we’ll argue about other stuff later maybe.
respectfully
June 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Which may be an issue in terms of free-speech since it does force a short period of silence on those who are not actually running in the election
Again, to be clear: this means you will have to throw people in jail for political expression - or fine them as alistair suggests (which of course will have a disproportionate effect on the poor, and which ignores the consequence of refusing to pay, i.e. you’re jailed).
I am just astounded that the Greens are arguing in favour of such controls. You guys are usually on the right side when it comes to such things as freedom of expression, and your position on this matter really does come over as though you’re wanting to muzzle any political opponents with more money than you.
I’d also want to see debates, real debates, between the principals.
We’re in total agreement there. Of course that’d mean the principals would have to have principles, understand them, and be able to articulate them. No chance of any of the major parties supporting the idea, then
June 19th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Yes Duncan… but I think that fines that are imposed proportionate to the ability to pay would serve sufficiently to keep honest people honest. Most people would simply abide by the law and I don’t mean to take it down to individual communications. Advertisement is not free and that is where the rubber meets the road here.
Did you see this? I can’t find the original on Reuters but I remembered it.
“02/10/2004 09:13 AM
Reuters - One of Finland’s richest men has been fined a record 170,000 euros ($217,000) for speeding through the center of the capital, police said on Tuesday.”
and your position on this matter really does come over as though you’re wanting to muzzle any political opponents with more money than you.
No Duncan… I actually want, DURING the election campaign, to muzzle every damned entity that is not actually a political party with a candidate standing for election. I don’t give a toss who they agree or disagree with.
That is I think the difference between how we see things and how you are characterizing our position. We really don’t care if people are for, against, rich or poor… we want the election process to be managed so as to reflect as accurately as possible the opinion of the people about the policies, ideals and ideas of the parties.
Removing the noise from external entities for a little while isn’t as bad as leaving it in. Removing it as totally as I propose, is simpler than trying to limit it.
respectfully
BJ
June 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
prehaps we should televise when parliment meets on a new publicly funded channel, and when they arnt meeting we can play different speeches, etc from the parties in the order of a random draw, then limit tv adverts to ‘flick over to channel ## at 9.30′ and eliminate other tv adverts from parties
June 19th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Advertisement is not free and that is where the rubber meets the road here.
…
I actually want, DURING the election campaign, to muzzle every damned entity that is not actually a political party with a candidate standing for election
But you’re talking about denying people a fundamental right: if someone not on the ‘approved list’ (party with standing candidate) publishes a political article during that time, you’ll jail him (or fine him, and jail him if he doesn’t pay).
That’s just wrong, and as I’ve said, it’s slightly surreal to be having this argument with a bunch of, generally speaking, liberal people.
Not to mention the fact that it’s so open to abuse … if I wanted to advertise a party, I could start my own, and then simply campaign by encouraging people to vote for the other party. The only way to fix that would be to have the Government control who can start a party, and for what reasons ….
The power to ban political expression is a power that no-one should have (as it is an explicit violation of human rights), and one with which the Government can most certainly not be trusted.
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Hi Duncan,
I note you lean heavily on the libel laws to ensure that freedom of speech is not abused. Again this is a resort that works for those with the money to pursue libel cases.
Did you actually read any of the material the EBs put out denigrating the Green policies at the last election? None of their poinbts were actually true - they managed a few near truths and some clever half-truths and quite a few blatent lies.
Bearing false witness and all that and they still haven’t been smitten by Gods thuderous hand yet - it could even make one start to question one’s belief in The Deity.
My questions is, if the libel laws are prooif enough against malicious mis-representation how do you explain the Brethren getting off without jail terms after their 2005 campaign for Donald Brash?
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
No Duncan,
It isn’t wrong if it is specific to a short electioneering period, it is merely sane. Nor does it impede the public debate… as anyone with the support of a few hundred fellow partying fools can start a party. Whatever the threshold actually is. Hard to prevent some wealthy guy from hiring a party though… and you’ve put your finger on a problem that’d still need work.
However…
No other method of ensuring the public knowledge of the actual views of the actual contestants seems to be tenable. ALL of them are open to all manner of abuse and the one thing I am sick to death of is the influence of money in politics due to the amount of money it takes just to get beat. The COMPLETE abuse of this process in the US has led me to this position, there is NO place in my way of thinking, for the money to be permitted to have a voice. Individuals? sure, but during the election period the advertising has got to be controlled by the contestants alone.
respectfully
BJ