by frog
I’m confused. Is the Herald confirming it thinks it is a good thing that a wealthy (sorry, ‘comfortable’) lawyer on Paratai Drive with very strong political views should be able to unaccountably spend $250,000 campaigning for or against whichever political party he wants?
That hardly seems a level playing field for John Key’s favoured voters on Mcgehan Close. A resident there might also like to donate $250,000 to helping Key win the next election just too, but well you know what, her share portfolio ain’t performing too well this financial quarter.
Yes, the electoral finance bill is flawed. Yes it needs some serious changes. Yes, it deserves some very public scrutiny from the media. But let’s not forget the millions of dollars of anonymous donations from the Ruahine Trust and the Waitamata Trust, with their shared post office box, and the Exclusive Brethren.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Media by frog on Wed, November 14th, 2007
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
So Greens suddenly think the EFB has ‘flaws’ beyond the omission of the anonymous donations provision? What are the ‘serious changes’ that you advocate? Can you outline what these flaws are, because until recently you guys have been pretty gung ho in favour of the EFB.
While the Greens talk about establishing a ‘level playing field’ in politics, the indications are that you guys, Labour, and NZ First are actually trying to undemocratically tilt the playing field for your own benefit.
And although the Greens now make some noises about letting the people decide on electoral rules, you guys have acted in a way that is entirely contrary to this supposed wish. Aren’t you guys worried about coming across as hypocrites on this issue?
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens always have, Bryce. As Jeanette said in her First Reading Speech:
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.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Toad. That’s interesting that Fitzsimons makes that point about ‘third parties’ so early on. I had previously thought that the Greens had only concentrated their political firepower on defending the EFB (albeit with the criticism that it didn’t go far enough), but I’ll have another look.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Damage control? Bit late now, isn’t it?
“Flaws”? Zero credibility….
Scrap the thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So the Greens are in favour of human rights and international law in every contry except New Zealand. Is that right? Or were the Human Right Commission only joking when they said:
“The bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process. The proposed legislation lacks public authorisation and as a consequence will undermine the legitimacy of political processes. It requires radical change”
What? Oh, I see, you’re just going to pop behind the bike sheds and make a deal with a few other politicians to rectify the minor flaws. Yeah right!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And my understanding is that the Greens and the Human Rights Commission are working together to try to get the radical change that the HRC said was required.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As is well settled law in the Land of the Free, the first amendment guarantees you the right to free speech, but it does not guarantee you the right to be heard.
It seems to me that these reforms are attempting much the same thing; to continue the example, a lawyer on Paratai Drive cannot use his wealth to make his utterances more visible (or audible) than mine, or anyone elses. Seems fair to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Yes, its so evil that people can spend the money that they have earned on whatever they want. We must crack down on these criminals.”
“It’s perfectly ok for tax payer money to be spent on election advertising. I mean, how else are we suppost to fund it, Money that WE have earned? But i though the only way to get wealth was to steal it, i mean how else do you make money?.”- The Socialist mentality
dbuckley: You seem quite happy to pick the parts of America that you like so much. Now that you are a big fan of the US constitution do you support the right to bear arms? Of course not because all you can do is pick and choose the parts that you like.
And even what you have picked doesnt prove your point. Not having the right to be heard means that if you were to send out advertising pamphlets, as the EFB would ban people can just chuck them in the bin without reading them. In other words this wealthy lawyer can spend all the money he likes, but no one has to pay attention to him. Nothing to do with your dodgey interpretation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So you want the best Government money can buy, Nick?
The US has got that at the moment, and see where it has taken them. Well, actually it wasn’t just money that got Dubya and Deadeye Dick elected the first time – they needed a wee bit of corruption in Florida – duly provided by Dubya’s brother Jeb and his cronies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nick – I’m a moderate fan of the constitution. Just about every legislative system has good points, and they all have bad points. I chose the first ammendment as an example, as it’s familiar-ish to most people.
The right to be heard is not constiutionally protected, and in most juristictions today it remains true that the power to communicate remains is in the hands of those with money. This interweb thing is all very cool and stuff, but we still live in a world where billboards and newspaper ads are more important.
As to the second ammendment: it has problems too. The ammendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but it’s pretty much useless in the face of it’s intended purpose. The reason that individuals get the right to bear muskets is so that if federal government didn’t work out, then the “well formed militia”, which actually means the states, have the possibility to overthrow the government. Of course, the second ammendment doesn’t guarantee one the right to posess an apache gunship, cruise missiles or nukes, so the original point of the ammendment has been lost. Not to mention it doesn’t actually work; folks with firearms were forced to hand them over just after katrina, so thats another nail in the Bill of Rights…
To your exact question – “Do I support the right to bear arms” – the bit missed out is “where”. In the USA then yes, as it’s a constitutionally protected right. I dont think it’s a terribly smart idea, mind you, but it is consistent with the way that America is. Here in NZ: Not sure. Not wild on the idea in general, but I did write in support of one of my son’s friends application for a firearms permit, so I’m clearly not rabidly anti-gun.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley: You’re probably right about the consitution. It just bugs me how so many greenies are really anti-american but are happy to use examples of good things about America when it suits them.
Toad: Do you know something that the U.S. supreme court didnt? Then what happened in 2004, oh thats right Kerry lost.
I compelety support making the sourse of donations public, i.e. more transperency. But the parts of the EFB that restrict peoples democratic right to spend their money how they want and give politicians taxpayer money to spend it how they want must go.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nick
I should like to direct your attention to the results in Ohio and the Conyer’s report. Kerry should have taken them to court TOO, but he didn’t. No stomach for it. The problem of illegitimate results in the Presidential elections over the past 2 election cycles is one of the reasons THIS American is here and Green.
The other part of this is that there needs to be a period (A DAMNED SHORT PERIOD, NOT A WHOLE YEAR!) just prior to the vote in which nobody but the parties gets to advertise. The influence of big money is the reason the U$A is so totally fncked np now. It needs to be silenced for a period of time so that instead of the spin on a party’s policies we hear the policies themselves. I trust the electorate to understand what I say… I don’t trust the electorate after a lot of money has been spent by someone else to “explain” what I say.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“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”
then it’s worthless. you can promote all the policies of x & disparage those of y without ever saying “vote x” yet that is your inherent message.
there’s just no way to stop the rich from using their wealth to publicise their message.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)