You are making the point about weighting the influence. You choose money. I’m just pointing out a fair amount of influence can be gained by using celebrities.

Will we also see more government grants for “art” that attacks the opposition parties?

What about the employer that gives their workers a paid day off to protest some new regulation that may affect their jobs?

The only possible exception I’d make is to allow a company that wants to be public spirited to donate across all parties - as I believe Pearson does (or has done) in the UK.

The point is that parties would not know from whence their funding came and there policies would therefore be ideologically charged, rather than financially charged. Or in the alternative the National party might do some nice things…

I don’t know what I think about the blind trust policy, but I think it is worth exploring. I think the quid pro quo argument is less important in New Zealand than it is in the US where you end up with congresspeople who are directly beholden to special interests.

If you want to be consistent, exclude from voting superannuatants and those on the sickness benefit as well. They also meet your criteria of “takes money from the tax payer for doing nothing”.

Of course, it’s not their fault they don’t have jobs: life’s just like that when you’re elderly or long-term sick.

But then it wasn’t my bloody fault when I was on the dole either: at the time lots of recent graduates were unemployed. Sometimes the economy either as a whole, or in some area, or in some profession, just goes belly-up. Likewise someone whose deadbeat partner walks out leaving them as a solo mum with the kids: stuff happens to people.

In case it’s not obvious, I think your proposal is utterly absurd. You want to exclude people from voting because they’re at a stage of life where they need a bit of help or down on their luck. I can’t imagine why anyone would find that fair or democratic.

There are no limits on donations of time and effort by individuals. Just money.

The aim of such laws is to prevent those with large sums of dosh from having more influence in the campaign merely because they are rich.

You seem to be proposing a radical change, to limit the amount of time people are allowed to volunteer to help a political party. More, your proposal is impose different limits on the value of time spend by different people merely because they are celebrities or other influential people.

Basically you’re saying that we should limit people from having more influence in the campaign merely because they are influential. Rather than our current approach of limiting people from having too much influence merely because they’re rich.

If there’s logic behind that suggestion of yours it’s not obvious to me.

The Handbook for Nomination Contestants says:
A non-monetary contribution is the commercial value of a service, or of property, or the use of property or money to the extent that they are provided without charge or at less than their commercial value.

Here are the rules for taxpayer funding, tax credits for political donations and compulsory advertising on all broadcast media:

Parties are entitled to reimbursement of 50% of their electoral expenses provided that candidates endorsed by the party received at least 2% of valid votes cast in an election or 5% of valid votes cast in constituencies in which the party endorsed a candidate (section 435).

Individual candidates are also entitled to reimbursement of electoral expenses if they receive 10% or more of the valid votes cast. The maximum amount that may be reimbursed is the lesser of 60% of the candidate’s paid election and personal expenses, or 60% of the maximum the candidate is allowed to spend in an election under section 441(3) of the Canada Elections Act (section 464).

Political parties are entitled to an annual allowance of $1.75 per vote received by the party in the previous election, provided that candidates endorsed by the party received at least 2% of the valid votes cast in that election or 5% of valid votes cast in the constituencies in which the party endorsed a candidate. The $1.75 allowance per vote is paid in quarterly instalments of $0.4375 per vote and is adjusted annually for inflation (section 435.01).

Amendments to the Income Tax Act now provide increased incentives for individuals to contribute to political parties and candidates. These amendments double the amount of an individual’s contribution that is eligible for the 75% tax credit from $200 to $400. The other tax brackets of the tax credit were increased accordingly, resulting in a maximum tax credit of $650 for donations of $1,275 or more.

Third parties may not incur more than $150,000 in total election advertising expenses. Of that amount, no more than $3,000 may be spent on supporting or opposing the election of one or more candidates in an individual constituency. With respect to a party leader, the $3,000 spending limit applies only to his or her candidacy in a particular constituency. These amounts are adjusted for inflation.

These limits were challenged as an infringement of the right to free speech in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Canada in Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), however, in a majority judgment, upheld the challenged provisions on the basis that they promoted electoral fairness.(3)

Allegations were made at the Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities that a registered party benefited from the work of full-time volunteers who were on the payroll of an outside organization while the volunteer work was being provided to the party. This work constitutes a contribution to the party made by the organization employing the individual. The Chief Electoral Officer recommends amending the Act to require registered political parties who receive an annual allowance under section 435.01 of the Act to submit a statement of volunteer labour provided to the party as part of its annual financial report to Elections Canada. Parties receiving an annual allowance are those parties who received at least 2% of the national vote or 5% of the vote in the constituencies in which they endorsed a candidate in the most recent general election.

Sections 335, 339 and 343 of the Canada Elections Act taken in
combination require that each broadcaster must make available, for purchase by registered and new political parties, 408
minutes of broadcasting time, during prime time, in the period beginning with the issuance of the writ and ending at midnight on the day before election day.

Sam Neil would cost about $5,000 per 5 minute speech or featured in a TV commercial, and we’ll be generous and put Al Gore at a conservative $50,000 per plug. $500K if he turns up live.

I find it very worthwhile to read/learn about election funding in other countries.

When the subject was raised here in NZ there was, I think, an ill informed outcry.

So more comparisons like this Canadian one please. Joy.