Govt ads in election year
One of the issues that needs to be dealt with in the Electoral Finance Bill is what to do about government spending on advertising in election year. Governing parties can use taxpayer funds to run massive tv etc advertising campaigns that promote the policies of the governing party, effectively circumventing the caps on spending by political parties. Yet, there is nothing wrong with government telling citizens about programmes that exist, in fact it’s essential really. This becomes particularly problematic when the regulated period for the cap on spending by political parties extends out to jan 1 of election year.
There are some options. Ban all govt ads in election year? Probably not viable. Possibly you could ban them in the final three months, though this does slightly undermine the logic of the new Electoral Finance Bill with its spending cap extending over the whole election year on the basis that the campaign actually covers the whole year.
You could put a cap on advertising spending by the government in election year. This could be tricky as it would cover so many types of advertising, but you could restrict it to a cap on tv and radio advertising, after all tv and radio advertising is treated in a special manner currently under electoral law (parties can only advertise on tv and radio using funds allocated by Electoral Commission).
And you could have the Chief Electoral Officer vet all govt ads so that they are purely informational. This would help and would be a useful check, but not really solve the problem.
Perhaps a combination of vetting, a cap on tv and radio advertising spending in election year, and total stop (except for ads from Electoral Commission or other ads that Chief Electoral Officer says are absolutely necessary) for the last three months?
This issue is not currently covered by the Electoral Finance Bill (except inadvertently if some of the analysis of the bill is correct) but should be really if we are aiming for a level playing field.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I think this is possible an area that Russel and I can actually agree on! Like I him I think this is a significant problem (because this spending is considerably higher than party spending), and it’s not entirely clear how to deal with it. I tend towards the need for greater transparency and the vetting of some sort of independent authority. The Auditor-General would be my preference, especially following the office’s fair handling of the 2005 misuse of parliamentary funds.
In 1990 the National Party had an election pledge to set up an independent watchdog on such government advertising. This was because in the preceding few years, the Fourth Labour Government had been the most heavily marketed government in New Zealand’s history. This led the National Party to claim that in the 1987 general election it had been outspent by 10 to 1. After all, between 1987 and 1990 the Fourth Labour Government is said to have spent $114 million on advertising.
Unsurprisingly, when National came into government in the early 1990s, it too took advantage of this promotional opportunity, reneged on their promise, and even refused to answer questions in Parliament on their government advertising and PR spending.
Luckily, much of the advertising is probably counter-productive. It’s interesting that when National tried to sell their health reforms with millions of dollars of advertising, no one bought it. A survey at the time showed that 75% of respondents regarded the campaign as a “waste of taxpayers’” money aimed at helping National win the election!
But maybe it’s worth having a look again at National’s 1990 watchdog idea.
Bryce
August 16th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
r*ssel..
it came out in parliament today that the rationales/cited examples/precedents for this legislation..
namely the oft-cited canadian/british systems/regimes..
have been mis-represented..”selectively quoted from”
and that neither system is anywhere as draconian/repressive as this little toxic stew dreamed up by labour and you..
going for a ‘world first’ in repression..are we..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(my first attempt to talk about this has disappeared into the ether…)
August 16th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
You remember my little rule about nobody but the parties advertising anything for the 45 days ahead of the election??
Government isn’t a party.
If it isn’t a matter of public health and safety or approved by the majority of the parties involved in the election, it doesn’t get published ’til after the election.
Basically that forces government adverts to be neutral, and it might well be a good rule to follow in or out of elections.
——OT—-
Just shut the damned Television OFF every Tuesday and Thursday. There isn’t enough worthwhile to fill all the available timeslots anyway, can’t be if they’re broadcasting the utter crap I see in the schedules.
Maybe a more intelligent society would turn it on on Tuesdays and Thursdays and leave it off the rest of the week.
——————
respectfully
BJ
August 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
“This issue is not currently covered by the Electoral Finance Bill (except inadvertently if some of the analysis of the bill is correct) but should be really if we are aiming for a level playing field.”
There can be very little doubt that Government advertising is not exempted - the question is whether any particular piece of advertising is caught - if it truly is all informational, then the Government can spend as much as Parliament votes. They’ll have to be careful, however - even in 99% of the Working for Families advertising was so bland that didn’t qualify as election advertising, that other 1% would still put someone (the CEO?) three times over the $60,000 limit (and potentially in jeopardy of prison).
August 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
The government takes too much in tax, then decides to advertise (millions of dollars wasted) to say “try and apply for some money back”. That’s just stupid. Every year, fill out a form that sets a tax code so you *get* your money back even if you dont watch TV.
Advertising that crap on TV should be illegal.
Just like the ACC advertisements that were simple branding messages (and gee, they are a monopoly). Total criminal waste of tax payer funds.
August 18th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
wot zen said..
phil(whoar.co.nz
August 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Speaking of nothing on TV, I found this:
http://freevideolectures.com/economics.html
I could spend all day watching some Discovery Channel programs. I would like more educational tv with a bit of interaction. Actually I took out a sub to the Press recently and I usually leave it there while I read the blogs… I think, newspapers have to find a way of complimenting the internet…Top articles > summary of internet discussions.
jh
August 18th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Part of the problem with funding of political parties and advertising could be solved if we developed a system where we (the people) force the issues and get their answers…. to a satisfactory state… no matter what it takes. We need to develop an institution that administers questions and answers.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:37 am
russel..
“..It is hard to imagine a piece of legislation more ill-conceived or repugnant to the New Zealand version of democracy..”
remember when you dismissed me/accused me of ‘hysterical’ opposition to this pox of a bill..?
well..it would seem the editorial writers at the herald have decided to join in on this (group?) hysteria..
i mean..sheesh..!..they are using stronger language that me in my ‘hysterical’ phase..
“..Legislation passed to address specific problems is almost invariably bad law. So it is with the Electoral Finance Bill,..
..
which is an egregious challenge to democracy and our freedom to express political opinions…”
(whoar..!..eh..?)….more..?..
“..Its name may seem innocuous, even yawn-inducing: the words “electoral” and “finance” are not likely to inflame public passion the way, say, “anti-smacking” will.
But danger lurks beneath that apparently tedious terminology..”
more..?
“..First, it defines as an “election advertisement” any expression of opinion that “takes a position on a proposition with which one or more parties or one or more candidates is associated”.
It’s hard to think of what is excluded from that definition: as worded, it would apply to the author of a graffito or even an email..”
y’know russel..the longer you cling to this wreckage..
the worse it looks..eh..?
and..russel..you should realise..the level of dismay..in me..and others..
that you..as green party co-leader..
not only had an active hand in drawing up this most repressive/anti-democratic piece of legislation..
but..despite it being obvious to blind-freddy what a dog it is..
you continue to pimp for it..(!)
despite it being impossible for you to be unaware of the degrees/levels of opposition..
even/especially..from (thinking) greens/supporters..
that just seems to both confirm the (premature) hubris you have already indicated..
and severe deficiencies in political judgment/acumen..
(that you (and labour) thought you could ’sneak this through’..?.)
(not to mention being an alarming indication of the apparant amount of labour party ‘control’ over you..
out there on ‘point-duties’ for them..)
and..an apparant lack of any ability/willingness to ‘mea culpa’..on your part..
only compounds that (widespread..and growing) dismay/disquiet at yr apparant lack of ‘leadership-skills’…
to fess-up..and admit you screwed-up..(would be what i would advise you to do..at this point in time..eh..?)
to do otherwise will only enlarge the hole you have already dug for yourself..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 19th, 2007 at 9:19 am
is it ok to be a plane citizen, a member of the community, an ordinary person, or should we be ashamed> a question of Values
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/nbr_rich_list.html#comment-331220
August 19th, 2007 at 9:21 am
There’s meat in that sandwich.
August 20th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
russell…even the listener is now weighing in..slagging against your poxy bill..
“..The new electoral spending proposals are anti-democratic.
When Justice Minister Mark Burton told Parliament that the government was “seeking to encourage full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election�, he must have known that he could hardly have been introducing a bill less likely to achieve that.
As drafted, the bill casts its net so widely that potentially something as innocuous as writing a personal letter saying “Don’t vote for so-and-so� would bring the writer under its auspices. It would be laughable if it were not so alarming.
If the bill is passed in this shoddy form, it would very likely result in hundreds and possibly thousands of New Zealanders inadvertently committing breaches of the law from January 1 next year. And it would be for no other reason than trying to do exactly what Burton, and most New Zealanders, would say is desirable, namely, having “full and open expression from a diverse range of interests in the run-up to a general election�.
The most grievous part of the proposals is the restrictions and impositions placed on “third parties�. Again, the government probably had in mind the Exclusive Brethren, but every group from Women’s Refuge to Federated Farmers would be affected. By the bill’s own definition, “election advertising� includes encouraging someone to vote or not to vote for one or more parties, and is also defined as “taking a position on a proposition with which one or more candidates, or one or more parties, is associated�.
So, other than political parties, no individual or group is allowed to spend more than $60,000, which is about the cost of one full-page ad in three metropolitan newspapers on a single day, in the entire calendar year up until the election, commenting on any subject on which any party has a policy. And the group will first have to register with the Electoral Commission. That is not fostering full and open expression. Rather, it gives the government a largely unfettered run in election year. It is an embarrassment that the bill in its present form has been put before Parliament.
But even that is not the end of it. If a group that is not an incorporated society happens to have even a single member who is not a registered voter – for example, because they might be only 17 – then that group is not allowed to become a registered third party and can spend no more than $5000 in election year.
And even those likely to spend less than $5000 are still caught in the net. As the Coalition for Open Government has pointed out, a student who writes in chalk on a footpath “Keep NZ GE Free� will have to sign a statutory declaration that their election expenses will not amount to more than $5000 and they will have to write alongside their slogan their full name and residential address. This restrictive and ridiculous bill will curb the vigorous and spontaneous debate that is desirable in a democracy in an election year.
The Electoral Finance Bill gives the strong impression that there has been a quantum shift in thinking about participation in public debate. Suddenly, it is as though any forms of communication to do with politics after January 1 – unless it is by the media, bloggers or the government itself (and possibly even some government communications will be caught) – are dangerous and need to be monitored and restricted. The proposition is absurd. There is no evidence to support it. It is not the public’s excess that needs curbing in this draconian proposal, it is the government’s.
Public submissions on this bill are now being sought. People should have their say. If they don’t, after January 1 they may find they cannot say much at all..”
so..how are you holding up there..?..still staunch..?
who else will need to say that you have got it so so wrong before you will shuck off your hubris..
(y’know..that..in your own words..doing what you ‘feel is right’..thing you have going on..?..)
and admit you ‘got it wrong’..?
as i said before..the longer it’s left..the more it rots/smells..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 21st, 2007 at 8:57 am
russel..
are you ever going to respond to/answer any of these widely-held concerns..?
or are you just displaying to us another example of your (premature) hubris..?
(just doing what you ‘feel to be right’..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 21st, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Phil
Softly, Softly catchee monkey…. I think that this bill is now in negotiation again and what isn’t happening HERE is immediate visibility into what is happening THERE… so Russel doesn’t have a lot more he can say. Maybe I’m wrong and we should all be shouting at him… but I don’t think that its productive effort at this point. I am not sure what the heck is going to come out of that committee, but I expect and hope that it will bear only some vague passing resemblance to what went in.
respectfully
BJ
August 21st, 2007 at 3:46 pm
i hear what you say..bj..
but we cannot get past the fact that russel norman has been part and parcel of the 18 month(!) period of poilcy-planning that went into it..
he then came out and tried to ’sell’ it to us all..
sneered at those who reacted in horror to what he proposed/was spruiking/leaning into..
and since then has retreated not one iota from that original deeply flawed stance..
and refuses to engage in any dialogue on his repressive anti-democratic ideas/’desires’..
and..his silence..and his (stated) ‘doing what he feels’ ethos..gives every indication of being riddled with hubris/arrogance..
what’s not to be alarmed about there..?..bj..
this is the co-leader of the green party we are talking about..!
whatever the outcome of the tide of protest rising against what is shaping up to be the worst piece of legislation bought before the new zealand parliament..?..ever..
russel normans fingerprints are all over this first attempt to sneak this through parliament..
and the creation of this worst piece of legislation..ever..
so yes..bj..we should all be shouting at him..
and can i just note..how amazed/dismayed i have been that..aside from yourself..
other greens have been largely silent on this..
is that silence acquiesence..?
(and could i just note..that had not many voices out here been raised in protest against this legislative horror..
that it would have just been passed by parliament..?
and we would have entered a era of govt control/suppression of political dialogue debate..
not since here since the country was under war/emergency conditions..
russel norman tried to be an architect of that ‘dark ages’..
(shudder..!…)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
>>other greens have been largely silent on this
Snouts in the trough, perhaps?
August 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I for one think we’re better making some progress than no progress and that the Greens are right to vote for this bill. It’s nothing near everything the Greens campaigned for and the process as run by Labour was weak, to say the least, but I still think it’s better than nothing. It’s just naive to buy Bill English’s line on this issue.
Molly
August 21st, 2007 at 5:49 pm
I think it’s the worst piece of totalitarian nonsense I’ve ever seen in this country.
Throw the whole thing out. Immediately.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:41 pm
good one molly 67..!
you really thought that one through..eh..?
i’ll be charitable and assume you have no idea of the implications of this legislation..
that you would know..and still support it..
sorta boggles/bends the mind too much..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
tho if i am wrong..and you have thought it through..
perhaps you could educate us to the benefits as you see them..?
August 21st, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Molly
Have you stopped to consider what this piece of legislation actually means? or are you simply going to support it because the Green party are backing it?
I would have thought that the Greens of all the parties in the house would be the ones leading the charge against this bill.
I can only assume that in some smoke filled room deals have already been done for the post election period, I would not mind betting that the Greens have been promised at least two cabinet seats if they support this piece of legislation.
Lets face it, Labour have nothing to lose, without the ability to silence any criticism they will be hammered at the next election, it is such a pity that the Greens have sold out just to secure the baubles of office.
August 21st, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Y’know he could’ve taken one of my suggestions from earlier and brought it forward and the whole damned process could be in cardiac arrest as a result… no way to tell at the moment.
respectfully
BJ
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
russel..here are a few more bricks in the wall being built against your poxy bill..
did you know it would force newspaper-based blogs..and websites..to close down..?
(the link has the evidence)
and can i just echo david farrars’ words..that on a purely self-interest level..
your legislation going through would open up a sea of advertising dollars..for the likes of farrar/kiwiblog..and for me at whoar..
(but you couldn’t work out a way to muzzle us/close us down..could you russel..?
cos’..if you could have..you would have..eh..?..)
lets all now pause..and give thanksfor the uncontrollable/anarchic qualities of the internet..eh..?)
so really..on those purely self-interest grounds..
you can see that i should be enthusiastically ‘pimping’/coming on strong..in support of your (avowed) ‘level-playing-field’..eh..?
(the very thought makes me gag..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:17 am
(ahem..)..the link..
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/08/newspaper_websites_and_blogs_all_clo sed_down.html
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2007 at 10:08 am
Sorry what, the Greens still support this? When Labour are backing down on it?
Electoral change needs to be done more carefully than this. I’m very disappointed, and I voted Green last time around.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
The Greens supported this Bill at First Reading so that it could be referred to the Select Committee to receive public submissions.
However, Jeanette in her First Reading speech expressed considerable reservations about aspects of the Bill, including the ones about “third party” electioneering that seem to be raising the ire of some on this blog:
“However, we do believe that the way this legislation attempts to control third parties needs another look, and we will be very involved in the select committee scrutiny of the bill. There is a fine line to tread between controlling ways of bypassing parties’ spending caps and completely muzzling freedom of speech by many citizens organisations, and this bill goes a bit too far. Does it mean, for example, that any organisation that expresses any views in an advertisement in election year, even if it does not mention parties, voting, or the election, is breaching the rules? Organisations have an absolute right to influence public opinion if they identify themselves and if they do not do it in support of a political party.
The Kyoto Forestry Association has already said it will breach these rules in its attempt to change policy on the allocation of forest Kyoto credits. I do not agree with Roger Dickie that credits are a property right belonging to forestry investors, but I will stand up for their right to put forward that view publicly, as long as they do not use the opportunity to say: “Vote for x and don’t vote for y.�
And I hold that view, even though they are in fact likely to say to vote for the Greens, because they said we have the best policy on forest credits, even though it is not the same as their policy. It is in this case a matter of principle for us. Will the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Vote for the Environment campaign that invites parties to complete a questionnaire about their policies and publishes the results be illegal now if it costs them more than $60,000?
We have to find a better way of doing this, and I look forward to the select committee debate. But we in the Green Party are very disappointed that the bill goes barely half way to giving us a fair campaign finance system. It still does not address the serious issues of anonymous donations, and it does not address caps on individual donations. There are no controls on secret donation laundering trusts, there is no cap on what a large corporation can give, and there are no restrictions on overseas donations, including donations from foreign Governments.
I wonder whether members have ever reflected on the extent to which foreign Governments would have the capacity to influence the New Zealand elections by funding some of the participants. I want to refer here to Raymond Miller’s book in early 2005, Party Politics in New Zealand, where he quotes Peter Dunne as saying that United Future drew on the expertise offered gratis by an American political consultant, who was put in touch with the party by the US embassy in Wellington.
So the US Government’s representatives in Wellington offered a US consultant, providing their services free to the party that was trying to give the Government a way out on genetic engineering—and it succeeded in giving the Government that way out. I do not think that overseas organisations should be able to participate in our elections.”
Whether the Greens support the Bill any further will depend, as BJ suggests above, on what comes out of the Select Committee - not what went in.
So, Xyphoid, hope that answers your question.
And Phil, to say “russell…even the listener is now weighing in..slagging against your poxy bill..” is a complete misrepresentation. It is a Government Bill - Russel is not an MP (yet) so can’t even introoduce a Bill.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:00 pm
toad..
it is my understanding that russel norman has been involved in the drafting of this bill…
in his role as co-leader of the greens..
(if this is not the case..i will withdraw and apologise..
or are you just ‘playing with words’/being a tad disengenuous here..?..toad..?
yes toad..i know ‘russel is not an m.p. yet’..eh..?
and yes toad..i also know that ‘.it is a government bill’..eh..?
once again..my understanding is that russel norman has been involved in the drafting/overseeing/approving..(any or all..?)..of this legislation..
as he has ‘disappeared”/fallen silent..i’m sure you will be able to answer that question..eh toad..?
and if not..why on earth has he been ‘pimping’ it..?
which brings us to the next question..
why on earth has he been pimping it..?..(c.f..his ‘entusiastic’ postings here..)
which brings us to the next question..
why..given the list of ‘wrongs’ with this bill..as ennunciated by jeanette..
“..we in the Green Party are very disappointed that the bill goes barely half way to giving us a fair campaign finance system. It still does not address the serious issues of anonymous donations, and it does not address caps on individual donations. There are no controls on secret donation laundering trusts, there is no cap on what a large corporation can give, and there are no restrictions on overseas donations, including donations from foreign Governments..”
given all of the above..why oh why did the greens (’agree’ with labour.?..obviously..?) to vote for it..?
and no toad..select committees are not set up to ”put right’/re-draft from square one.. toxic/poxy legislation..
there is an assumption that before a bill goes to select committee..that 95% of the work has been done in drafting..
the select committee is for submissions/fine-tuning..
(18 months they’ve been working on this..remember..?
and isn’t the timing cute..?..eh..?
if they had been able to ’sneak’ this through before christmas..
come early next year..the shutters would have come down..
and end of story..
and however you now try to re-write history..toad..
russel norman has been part and parcel of that campaign to ’sell’ this to us..
um..?..why..?..given otherjeanettes thoughts/stated misgivings..
has russel been ‘doing this’ (unquestioning) promotion of..with the ‘kindest’ of views..is a deeply flawed piece of legislation..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I think Russel was consulted re at least some aspects of this Bill at some stage, but know no more, so can’t enlighten you further Phil.
But please don’t write off the Select Committee process completely Phil. Occasionally the Select Committie process degenerates into a complete sham (eg the Foreshore & Seabed Act one), but I’ve also seen a lot of bad Bills substantially improved through the Select Committee process, but it requires people to engage.
The Justice & Electoral Select Committee allows on-line submissions, so you don’t need to do the old 25 copies bit. You can make an on-line submission on the Bill here. The closing date is 7 September.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
From the Law Journal
“It is possible that some of the more bizarre provisions are there to be negotiated away so that parties in the House will feel they have achieved something and vote for the amended Bill. That should not happen. This Bill is fundamentally obnoxious and should be scrapped”
I agree. It is indeed fundamentally obnoxious and should never get near select committee.
Do the right thing.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Key demolishes anti-free speech bill: tinyurl.com/2v3xwz
” This deeply flawed and anti-democratic bill needs to be ripped up and tossed in the bin.
The Prime Minister says there’s no need for that. She says any problems with the bill will be ironed out by the select committee, which contains representatives from all parties.
The problem is we are not talking about ironing out glitches, or correcting drafting errors, which is what select committees are good at. We are talking about a bill that is a total and utter mess. It is so heavy-handed it replaces 32 sections of the Electoral Act with 158 of its own.
“
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Haven’t had a chance to read all of this thread, but I will simply re-enuciate our position which we held from the beginning. There are some useful bits of this bill which is why we have agreed to support it, but there are problems. We were consulted before the bill went into the house and agreed to support it on this basis.
The most useful bit is the expenditure cap put on non-party actors such as the exclusive brethren - necessary when there are expenditure caps on the parties as there should be. However the definition of election activity has been written too broadly and needs to be narrowed as I’m sure it will be in the select committee process.
Interestingly, John Key’s latest speech says he supports caps on non-party actors but doesn’t say how he’d do it. The question of what is an election activity inevitably comes to the surface once you agree to such caps but he doesn’t propose an alternative defintion.
The omission of controls on anonymous donors and secret trusts is one of the big omissions with the bill.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
>>The omission of controls on anonymous donors and secret trusts is one of the big omissions with the bill.
Makes you wonder why Labour haven’t put it in there, as National claim to want more transparency in this regard.
I think the *biggest* problem with it is, as Key states, is fundamental:
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
russel..and what role did you play in drawing yp this legislation..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Russel,
“There are some useful bits of this bill which is why we have agreed to support it, but there are problems. We were consulted before the bill went into the house and agreed to support it on this basis.”
I guess hindsight would suggest you should have publically listed these provisions of the bill you were unhappy with PRIOR to endorsing it.
That way you would have been on the side of the Angels. Now you are joing Labour in a fast back pedal.
Not a good look.
Also your fixation with the EB’s is getting passe. Do like Helen Clark says, Move On.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Gerrit, the way things work at Parliament is that if you are consulted by Government in confidence on a Bill and publicly state the things that are wrong with it before the Bill is made public by Government, you won’t be consulted again. That would be seen as a breach of confidence, and in any case is the sort of dirty trick that the Greens don’t descend to.
So the Greens had to take a position before the Bill became public. The Bill was tabled in Parliament on 23 July, and on the same day Russel issued this media release expressing reservations about it. Then Jeanette used the First Reading speech to express further Green reservations. These were the first available opportunities to publicly list the Greens concerns without breaching the confidentiality of the consultation process.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
toad..you seem to be able to ignore russel normans ‘endorsing/selling/defending..(calling opponents ‘hysterical’)..of this bill..
in this very forum..
do you really need me to ’selectively quote’ from them..?..for you..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Phil
“hysterical” … apparently refers to some other incident or thread. I don’t see it here… though it may well be elsewhere on the forum?? You may have to quote or link some of whatever it is that you’re referring to.
ciao
BJ
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:30 pm
bj..it’s on the ‘cog submission thread’..
“..be careful joining in their campaign of hysterical abuse against the bill. By all means let’s make the bill better, but if you join in the campaign by the Nats et al you will be making it easier for the forces of darkness at the next election, and all the following ones..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Thanks Phil
August 22nd, 2007 at 9:45 pm
with my pedant hat on, he didn’t call opponents hysterical he said the campaign against the bill consisted of “hysterical abuse”,
which seems to be a trend in NZ politics recently unfortunately, it’s all been a bit Talk Back radio in the last year hasn’t it? What with the campaign against S59 repeal, the astonishing vehemence of the reaction to Sue B’s promotion of lowering the voting age, and now this most evil law ever hyperbole (people writing in chalk on pavement will have to … etc.)
I don’t see what is so terrible about supporting some parts of a bill and seeking to have other parts ammended. And I don’t see why this bill is any more or less of a dogs dinner than any other bill. They’re all pretty shit aren’t they, design by committee and all that.
And furthermore I don’t think that many people in the real world have taken any notice about the controversy over this bill, it’s too dull a subject for most, too technical, it really is just political circles that are bothered.
If you think there are specific things wrong with the bill, make a submission rather than spout off conspiracy theories and outrage.
Here’s a carrot for participation: “Submissions will be published on this website once they are released by the committee.”, so (1) It’s an easy online form and (2) you’ll get to see your name in lights dissing the bill. You could even copy and paste some of your writing from the threads on this site to form the basis of your submission. Hooray for the democratic process!
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
ok stuey..so that’s you and russel who like/support this bill..
(maybe you could form a ’support-group’..?..)
and your rationales are..’interesting’..
um..!..have you ever heard of the term ‘lazy-thinking’..
(y’know..as in..sweeping/ridiculous statements like..”why bother..?..they’re all pretty shit aren’t they..?”)
yeah right..stuey..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 6:29 am
Two points Stuey,
I think you are dead wrong that people in the “real” world have not taken notice of this bill. They have, hence the backtrack by Labour.
I dont think anyone has spouted “off conspiracy theories and outrage”.
Just pointed out the bills many failings and short comings especially interpretation, enforcement and penalties.
No doubt you will be making pro submissions?
Toad,
Thanks for the explanation, and yes, I can see how you are tied up with a confidentiality clauses in the Greens support of the Labour government.
Trouble I have is that (as shown by the Greens comments on the tread phil refers to) the Greens have not all that actively explained which bits they oppose and which they support.
I repeat what I have said in an earlier comment. Just imagine being in opposition to a government and the bill was fully enforced in law.
Would you be happy with it?
If not, which bits will you be making submissions on for changing and what will the changed position be?
I’m particularly interested in how you see how the governance of New Zealand will be managed if election results end up in court because of alledged electioneering infractions.
The position of Governor General becomes vitally important. Has that position got enough power to rule over what could be an extensive period of time while elections results are before the court?
Has the GG position the power to form a bi party government as the court process winds it way to the privy council (oops that gone), highest court in the land.
One could envisage an incumbent government taking maybe three or four years to drag an election result through the courts. Should they still be the government or should the GG be able to call for a grand coalition until the legal dust is settled?
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 am
Gerrit said: Toad, Thanks for the explanation, and yes, I can see how you are tied up with a confidentiality clauses in the Greens support of the Labour government … the Greens have not all that actively explained which bits they oppose and which they support…
1) The Green do not support the Labour Government. The Greens have abstained on confidence and supply in this Parliamentary term (and opposed the Government on confidence and supply in the last Parliamentary term). The Government relies on the support of Parties other than the Greens (NZ First and United Future) on confidence and supply or it will fall. With the exception of a few areas of public policy that the Greens have an agreement with Government on, they vote on Government legislation on a case by case basis according to the merits of the legislation in the context of Green Charter Principles and Policy .
2) This isn’t about being “tied up with confidentiality clauses” in support of anyone. It is about simple respect for keeping something confidential until it is made public when you are offered advance perusal of it in confidence. It is not just with Government that this happens - there have been occasions when the Greens have had confidential discussions over legislation with the National and Maori Parties, and, I think, even United Future.
3) I think Jeanette’s speech on the First Reading couldn’t be any clearer about which bits of this Bill the Greens oppose and which bits they support.
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:17 am
toad..russel norman was involved in the drafting of this bill..
and how disengenuous of you to protest that “the greens do not support the labour government’..
um..!..do you think we are all really stupid..?..toad..?
your ‘guarantee to abstain’ props up this govt..jend of story..
jeanette fitzsimons is a ‘govt. spokesperson’..(!)..end of story..
russel norman ‘worked’ on this bill with labour..
w.t.f. are you trying to spin here..?..toad..?
and..”..This isn’t about being “tied up with confidentiality clausesâ€? in support of anyone. It is about simple respect for keeping something confidential until it is made public when you are offered advance perusal of it in confidence..”
so that is your explanation for..how in many cases/situations..the green mp’s have appeared to have sellotape over their mouths..?
whatever happened to that proud/independant/forceful/vociforous green party we thought we had helped to get into parliament..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 10:21 am
Toad,
To quote directly from the afore mentioned speech.
“We are supporting the bill because it implements Green Party policy on extending the pre-election period back to 1 January in election year. That will ensure that an election campaign like the National Party billboards in 2005 can still happen, but it will be part of the capped election spending.”
That is set in stone. Nearly 30% of the time New Zealand will be in election mode.
The other four points are a wish list without any methodology to how those issues will be implemented, enforced and breaches penalised.
Will the Greens be making their submissions to the select committee, public beforehand?
Particularly how the constitutionally New Zealand will be governed if an election result goes before the courts.
Worse case scenario (hyperbole for Stuey) I see is an incumbent government hanging on to the treasury benches for an infinite time while an election result is before the courts.
The incumbent off course (as displayed by the current Labour government) have the power to enact retrospective legislation to overturn any court decision.
What we need is a power constitution that prevents this.
Are the Greens looking at this wider scenario and in favour of a constitution?
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Phil U said: um..!..do you think we are all really stupid..?..toad..?
your ‘guarantee to abstain’ props up this govt..jend of story.. jeanette fitzsimons is a ‘govt. spokesperson’..(!)..end of story.. russel norman ‘worked’ on this bill with labour.. w.t.f. are you trying to spin here..?..toad..?
Phil - we’ve had MMP for over 10 years, and you still don’t seem to understand how it works. It’s not about “supporting” or “opposing” political parties - from a Green point of view it’s about working with whatever parties at whatever times to try to get the best result in terms of Green policy. Jeanette agreed to be Government Energy Efficiency Spokesperson not to “support the government” but because she saw it as a way of furthering an important aspect of Green policy.
Regarding electoral finance reform, the Greens’ support the objectives set out in this document from Russel back in April that was developed through the Green Party policy process.
While you might disagree with the tactical position the Greens have taken in attempting to achieve these objectives by supporting the Bill to Select Committee, please don’t descend to the muckraking level by alleging with no evidence that there has been some sort of backroom deal done here.
If you have evidence of this, Phil, publish it. Either put up or shut up!
Gerrit - the Greens don’t have a policy position on a written constitution. I personally support having one, but know there are other members who do not. There are complex issues involved here, one of the most significant being how or if a written constitution would affirm Te Tiriti of Waitangi. This is not the sort of policy position that can be developed overnight (not that the Green do that anyway).
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm
toad said..
“..While you might disagree with the tactical position the Greens have taken in attempting to achieve these objectives by supporting the Bill to Select Committee, please don’t descend to the muckraking level by alleging with no evidence that there has been some sort of backroom deal done here.
If you have evidence of this, Phil, publish it. Either put up or shut up!..”
oh..!..so russel normans’ wholesale/wholehearted spruiking/selling of this ..(see this forum)..happened by some form of feckin’ osmosis on his part..?..
he just woke up one morning..and..
i presume you expect us to believe this..?..toad..?
and how do your current disavowals/dummy-spit fit in with your previous admissions that norman had a role in the drafting of this legislation..?..(!)
(once again..see this forum.!.)
gizzallafeckin’breakhere..!..eh toad..?
your/the greens whole relationship with labour has been characterised by ‘backroom-deals’/arrangments..
(none of which any greens..save the ‘inner-circle’..are ever really aware of the nuances of..eh..?..)
as you and labour have both ‘waltzed’ around each other..
yes..!..there have been ‘fallings-out’..but..?
how else do you think you are/became fixed in the publics’ mind as ‘being with labour’..?…eh..?
is that enough ‘put-up’ for you toad..?
(let me know if you need more..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:51 pm
btw toad..
thank you for linking us to the evidence of russel normans’ ‘osmosis-experience ‘..eh..?
i see some of his ‘desres’ are even more onerous than the end-product..(that one ‘osmosised’ by labour..we presume..?..)
with norman wanting any one/group to be able to spend only fifty grand..(three newspaper ads)..in any election campaign..(!)
(and..no ending of anonymous donations to political partties tho”..eh..?
in that final ’spruiked-model’..
(once again..osmosis-driven’..?..we are led to believe..?..)
but the real scary part of russels ‘desires’..is his wanting to close down/control political dialogue from january next year..untill the election in november..(?)
and from there on into the future..for one third of the time..for one year out of three..
now..i don’t know about anyone else..
but i find that to be really feckin’ ’scary’..to be quite honest..
is this what the greens are about..?
how can the green agenda have been so hijacked..?
to have become a vehicle for the most toxic/repressive/anti-democratic/anti-free-speech piece of legislation ever conceived in this parliament..
legislation wholeheartedly supported/driven by..in his own words..the green party co-leader..
the minfd feckin’ boggles..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Phil said: is that enough ‘put-up’ for you toad..?
There isn’t any ‘put-up’ at all Phil. Just more unsubstantiated allegations.
I said “I think Russel was consulted re at least some aspects of this Bill at some stage”
Russel later said “We were consulted before the bill went into the house and agreed to support it on this basis.”
Somehow you distort this to say: “and how do your current disavowals/dummy-spit fit in with your previous admissions that norman had a role in the drafting of this legislation..? I never said that at all.
Phil, you also said: your/the greens whole relationship with labour has been characterised by ‘backroom-deals’/arrangments If you have evidence of this, publish it. The only arrangement with Labour is this one, which has been out there for everyone to see since October 2005 and contains nothing about electoral finance reform.
Unless you put up some hard evidence to substantiate your allegations, I’m not going to bother continuing this debate. No point in feeding trolls.
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
and..
“..Regarding electoral finance reform, the Greens’ support the objectives set out in this document from Russel back in April that was developed through the Green Party policy process..”
(w.t.f…?..)
are you telling us that most greens support the closing down/controlling of political dialogue for one year out of three..?
i think if you polled them..you would find they would not..
(hey..!..there’s a ‘green’ idea..eh..?
direct polling of party members on party policy..?
and not just leaving it in the hands of the few ‘policy-wonks’ ..who ‘can be bothered’ ploughing through the current torturous process..
a process..that because of that byzantine/bureaucratic ‘maze’ to be encountered/endured by anyone who dares to comes near..
is ‘democratic’..and revealing/speaking for true/real green member attitudes..
in name only..
that this small group of you have fostered/festered? this piece of legislative tyranny must be a wake up call to/for the wider green party membership..
to take back control of/have some oversight of/on policy-making..
and not let it continue to be hijacked/driven by that small group of old-school far-left/alliance-refugee ideologues..
(is ivan sowry still ‘in charge’ of policy-making..?..’nuff said..?..eh..?..
ivan and russel..)
this legislation reeks of old school soviet-style repression of free-speech..
and as i have warned before..
these people who have hijacked the green party..will kill the green party..
by driving/painting it into a far-left corner..
ex-communist party aparatchik/member russel norman..
and those who ‘pushed’ him as co-leader..
seem to be well on the track to doing just that..eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:26 pm
that’s right toad..don’t address any of the issues..
just attack me..eh..?
you are as transparent as a sheet of glass..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
(and y’know toad..are you so ‘important’ you have to hide behind a pseudonym..?
and seeing as you purport to speak for norman/the green party..eh..?
what is your ‘issue’ about stepping up to your words..?
and putting your real name to them..?
‘trolls’ are usually anonynous ..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 23rd, 2007 at 1:53 pm
One might hope that Jeanette is reconsidering the length of that pre-election period in light of the level of restrictions… but I am content to put in my 2 cents (I already submitted something and thanks for the link), and wait to see what actually comes OUT of the process before I am inclined to start shouting at people and marching in the street.
This bill as it is written is not one that should be rejected lightly, it is is one that should be hurled away with great force. However, the process of rewriting it is not finished by any means and I don’t prejudge an outcome.
Key is looking better on this than we do however, and that is a distinct worry.
respectfully
BJ
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Phil, please take this in the spirit in which it is intended; your writing style is incredibly annoying to read and it makes it hard to engage with your arguments, or even determine if you have any arguments at all. I’m not sure if you have a disability that causes you to communicate like this, and I apologise in advance if that is the case and you feel unduly discriminated against. But, between your personal attacks and your incorrect assertions I just don’t feel like you’re putting your best foot forward on this blog.
Regards,
Molly
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
phil, I never said I supported the bill. I just argued in favour of
* the parliamentary process whereby bills that are badly worded get tightened up and improved through select committee and
* the Greens position that when a bill contains some bad bits and some good bits that the Greens will vote in favour of the bill and campaign to get the bad bits changed.
gerrit, almost all the anti-posts on this subject have expressed outrage, and BB and phil in particular have posited conspiracy theories. BB that “the Greens have been promised [in a backroom deal] at least two cabinet seats if they support this piece of legislation” and phil’s is something like: Russel wrote the bill in order to get blogs that criticise him banned in an election year, (actually I don’t know what his actual theory is, it is a bit difficult to discern the meaning out of Phil’s abusive rants / chicken scratchings).
phil, it’s a bit rich of you to complain about toad attacking you (not that I thought s/he did) when just about every second post of yours involves attacking someone.
I also fail to see how Russel’s posts and replies are attempts to sell the bill - to me they seem to be discussion pieces about things that are good about the bill and things that are bad about it, but then maybe it’s because I don’t read everything through hate-filled spectacles.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Stuey - You get a rec
Oops… I’m sorry, the blog software still doesn’t let us rate posts.
[[[ Frogggg!!!!! When???!!! ]]]
Well said anyway.
respectfully
BJ
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
ok stuey..just carry on yr personal attacks..
and totally ignore the issue..the closing down of free-speech for one year out of three
by the way..i couldn’t give a flying feck one way or the other about russel norman..(or you..)
i am attacking what he is trying to do..
and those who support him in this..
this is seriously what you are ‘about’..stuey..?
you personally support that closing down of free-speech..?
feckin’ hell..!
(and stuey..’rants’..’chicken-scratching’..?
can’t you even come up with an original one..?..sheesh..!..cribbing from norman..?..show some class/have some self-respect man..!
i can’t even build up a decent head of steam at being insulted..
just ennui..
and bj..after the select committee hearings will be ‘too late.’.eh..?
it’ll be a done deal by then..
and interesting that you give stueys’ comment a rating..when he spends all its time adhomining all over me..
‘hate-filled spectacles’ and all..(heh-heh..!..)
yet you oppose this legislation..?….
oh well..!
i suppose somehere in your literal/engineering mindset..that makes sense..eh..?
carry on..!
and molly 67..you (sob!) highlight my ‘disability’..?..in this public manner..?
how cruel can you be..?
(haven’t you heard i was born with an inability to write capital letters..?
it’s called ‘the lower-case-syndrome’..eh..?..)
and is more widespread than you may think..eh..?
one of those silent/creeping disabilities..eh..?
you too..molly 67..can ‘carry on!’..eh..?
phil(whoar
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Phil, calling your posts in this thread (and others about this bill) “abusive rants” is not a personal attack against you, that’s just, IMHO, accurate description.
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Phil
Less than half of Stuey’s comment was addressed to you and less than half of what was addressed to you was directed AT you, the rest was explanation.
Opposing WHAT Phil? The thing that went into the committee? Sure… but what comes out will not resemble it very much and there is no way to know what will come out, so there is no point in going non-linear here.
So yes, in my literal engineering mindset, with high values placed on logical use of my time, effort and credibility with others, I see absolutely no advantage to being excited now. I have no idea how it will look when it comes out of committee and I expect that when it does, the response of the Green Party will not be reflexive support but a more carefully considered response.
That’s to be determined THEN, when there’s something to comment about.
Right now there is nothing real to comment about.
why be excited? ..eh..?..)
respectfully
BJ
August 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Fair call Stuey,
Have tried to get the Greens opinion on what the consequences will be if the bill is enacted. Except for Toad doing his bit, very little has been thought through from either the fore’s and against’s.
Maybe addressing some of the consequences of the bill would be more constructive.
Have posed the (in my mind anyway) very serious constitutional question of what happens when an election result hinges on any number of court ruling.
Not addressed at all by the pro’s side.
That is the problem with this proposed bill, so many unanswered but very emotive and highly important question.
Which naturally leads one to think of ways to circumvent the system.
Me personally thinks that this bill is fatally flawed. There are so many loopholes in it that invariably all the possible infracktions are going to have to go before the courts for rulings.
August 23rd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
BJ,
Read your comments after posting mine. In my view whomever tabled all 70 odd pages of this bill could have done a far better job of structuring and explaining what they wanted to achieve plus (and this is the biggie for me) what the consequances would be if enacted.
With the current police record of not prosecuting (even when a prima facia case is establised) political wrongdoings, what chance after this bill is passed?
I suspect that there will be many breaches of this act in the future and very few Police prosecutions.
I dont think our constitutional law (and I suggest the public prosecutors and police will see it this way as well) is robust enough to handle the consequances of an election having to be ratified through the court system.
Which perfectly suits the party with the most money to spend on legal services. The very thing this bill was going to stop.
August 23rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I found this link on how to lobby MP’s
Barnett T (2002) Lobby Pack, http://www.timbarnett.org.nz/documents/lobby%20pack%20model.doc
August 24th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
I’m not sure why everyone is so obssesed about the level of funding anyway.
The EBs money clearly worked against them. Really, the left should be encouraging the EBs to spend far more next time round.
I read a study in the States - they essentially pitted the candidates against themselves. The study found that it didn’t matter how much a candidate spent, it didn’t shift their vote by more than 1%. The public either liked the candidate, or they didn’t.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
PEL
In the USA the public is under a FPP balloting system and is extremely susceptible to perceived vote utility. Not a lot of folks vote. Money is spent not just on advertising but also on legal challenges and finding ways of disenfranchising voters. It counts… but that perceived utility is a killer.
Americans won’t shift votes. They can however, be persuaded NOT to vote. They can be persuaded that their party’s candidate is no good/no better, by clever advertising and proper promotions. They can be persuaded to stay home, but not to switch sides.
There are limits to the damage big money can do… but the acceptable limit to the damage it can do is zero.
I would be very hesitant to apply US studies to NZ conditions. I know there are serious differences in the conditions.
respectfully
BJ
August 24th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
That may be so, BJ but how does one explain the “results” the EB achieved? If anything, they kept National out, and helped the Greens and Labour get back in.
Study after study shows people vote based on personality. Bradford could be handed billions in advertising funding, but I personally doubt she’d win a seat directly.
I dispute the assumption that funding differences make much of a difference to the end result.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Ford spent as much money on the launch of the Edsell as did on the launch of the Mustang. The Mustang was a runaway success. The Edsell made people run away. The Edsell was market researched to death. The Mustang was a little more than a rebodied Falcon quickly cobbled together to target a niche identified in conversations at the Detroit auto show, essentially a low budget gamble.
BJ seems to understand the average American’s response to advertising very well.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
PEL
The problem the EB face and faced then is that they are a fringe group, a group that once identified as espousing a particular cause provided its own negatives to the equation. Much the same problem as the Greens have with other parts of the electorate, but we do not try to hide who and what we are.
The fact is that THEY actually understood this, and so attempted to hide their involvement in the advertising. The negative effect you speak of came into play after they were “outed”.
As long as the source of the money can be hidden the voters do not get to exercise that level of judgment and only the advertising effects will be felt. When the source of the advertising is known Americans and New Zealanders alike consider the source as well as the message.
As an American expat I am not exactly unfamiliar with the effects of advertising. The advertising that works is subtle and often indirect. The image creation and brand awareness advertising. Greens are branded as dope smoking, jandal wearing, folk dancing communists. This is the message everyone hears and gets all the time. In fairness it describes only the most radical members, but it is used against the party with devastating effect. We have done little to rebrand ourselves. I think I understand this, but it leaves us always vulnerable. A portion of all the other party publicity has always been to play on that branding. Not a strong message, but a constant dripping of acid against the stone. We do nothing to counter it at all because we do welcome the dope smoking, jandal wearing, folk dancing communists. The fact that most of us are just ordinary citizens with extraordinary vision, is lost.
The direct campaigns that work tend to do so at the margins. The “swift boat” campaigns that pile lie upon lie until nobody at the margin can stay there because of the polarization. A portion of the electorate looks at the charge and counter-charge, lie and rebuttal stacked by the column foot in the papers and simply throws up their hands, shakes their heads and walks away. That’s the PRIMARY effect… not to change people’s minds but to dissuade them from making a choice.
If you do not think this is a calculated and carefully understood effect you mistake the real knowledge of the advertising firms in the USA. They know almost exactly what will happen in the demographics they target.
So anonymity is a problem. Money too is a problem.
I have proposed because it is simple and simply enforced, that no third parties INCLUDING the government, can advertise any political position in a pre-election period. That there be an exception if most of the parties agree, to government advertisement that is necessary to health and safety.
For that period nobody gets to speak about the party’s policies but the party itself or an opponent party and all discussion of this nature in the public fora (excepting the debates) counts against the party cap. So a party indulging in a lot of negative message will be doing so at the expense of their positive message… and this will be noticeable due to the absence of the third party commentary.
I didn’t casually come up with this. I have been watching the deterioration in the USA for most of a lifetime. I understand it quite well, and I understand the ways in which people with money can exploit every tiny hole in the wall.
respectfully
BJ
August 25th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
>>the Greens have with other parts of the electorate, but we do not try to hide who and what we are.
Smirk. Never much cared for watermelon, myself.
>>Greens are branded as dope smoking, jandal wearing, folk dancing communists.
I think there is a fair amount of truth in it, and a brand achieved with little in the way of advertising budget.
I understand your points.
Unlike the USA, we have high participation rates in elections, and people are interested in their democracy. I would like to see a New Zealand study of the causal link between the size of budgets compared to the seats/% won.
It has been assumed that more money leads to more votes. Where is the evidence?
August 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
More money doesn’t make more votes…. it influences elections, a subtle but important difference. It cannot change underlying principles. It will not in general cause a person with core liberal principles to vote for a conservative, but it can influence that person to give up on the election altogether.
I am excluding the “dirty tricks” aspects of this, as efforts to purposely disenfranchise voters are not large features in elections here. They are however, one of the reasons Bush retained the presidency in 2004. The record in Ohio is bizarrely bad and only the fact that Kerry refused to take it to the courts kept it from entering the public eye. Money makes dirty-tricks possible, but it doesn’t happen so much here.
Money alters the outcome of tight contests. I am not sure that any amount of money will affect the negatives that Labour has accumulated. Money pays however, for voter outreach campaigns that get more people involved at the grass-roots level to bring in new voters. It pays for the image building efforts. It pays for the best advertising firms and the best ideas to keep the brand in the public eye. If a party is performing poorly, particularly the party in power, money will not cure it. If performing well, money will not destroy it.
Lack of money however, to be unable to reach the cap on spending due to an inability to raise the funds, is costly. People who do not see your message at all cannot begin to form an opinion of it.
Overall I want the money not to be the governing issue, and I want the expenses of the campaigns to be reduced to the point that anyone can play.
I also want to have a period in which the rest of the noise is shut off and only the positions as enunciated by a party itself are placed in media releases. There is no controlling the news media, they will continue to distort all positions as they invariably do, but we will get a better look at the party positions. That not only helps Greens, whose positions are invariably distorted mightily…. but it will help all parties participating in the democratic process.
respectfully
BJ
August 25th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
The question is “does the party with the higher budget get more votes”?
Has this fact been established here? If the funding level makes marginal difference, then why the draconian measures?
The downside of these measures is that we limit free speech - a far more dangerous proposition in my view, and one that I’m surprised Greens have *anything* to do with, although not surprised if it turns out the “communist core” depiction is accurate.