by Russel Norman
I have blogged on many occasions about the Electoral Finance Bill and how it needs to be changed. But in light of fhe Herald’s rather oddly timed campaign it is worth recapping.
The Bill is needed because at the last election the Exclusive Brethren showed how parties can avoid the $2.4m expenditure limit by running a parallel campaign that was in effect “vote National” (ie blue leaflets with ‘change the govt’ on them). The EBs maybe spent $1m on this campaign, effectively increasing National’s spending to $3.4m. It is also needed because of the flood of secret money coming to the parties (and possibly other campaiging groups) through the trusts.
The Bill sets up a system which means that groups that wish to spend money (over a threshold) electioneering need to register and they have a spending cap. It does a lot more but that is central to it.
We have been pushing for changes in the Bill:
1. The definition of an election advertisement is drawn too widely and will capture NGO issue advertising as well as election advertising. This can be remedied by removing the last sub-clause of of the definition. An election ad should be one that actually seeks to influence voting behaviour. This is the single most important change from the perspective of protecting freedom of speech.
2. The scheme of requiring statutory declarations when placing ads is too cumbersome and should go.
3. NGOs that are primarily not involved in electioneering shouldn’t have all their donations treated as if they were for the purposes of electioneering.
4. Groups with members aged under 18 should be allowed to register as third parties in the cmapaign.
5. It needs to be explicit that govt depts can’t electioneer (it is implicit currently)
6. We need to crackdown on the use of trusts to channel money to the parties and on anonymous donations. the Green policy is that anything over $1000 should be clearly identified as to the true source.
7. There should be an independent process to review the legislation after the election. We think a Citizens Assembly would be a good way forward.
8. Tweaking the balance of the regulated period and the caps on third parties to ensure that there is sufficient ability for groups to have their say in election year without overwhelming the election.
We are negotiating with other parties to acheive these changes. We won’t get everything we want but we will get some of it. As a party committed to fair elections and freedom of speech that seems the most responsible approach.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Russel Norman on Wed, November 14th, 2007
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Russel,
Thank you very much indeed for expressing those aspects of the EFB so clearly. How very much I hope the Greens are given a good hearing. Joy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gee russel..!
going on/by your original ‘wishlist’..
you’ve already got all you want..
’spinning’..?..are we..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil, don’t you get it? If you want Russel, or anyone else, to seriously respond, link to the “original ‘wishlist’ ” so we know what you are talking about.
And for someone who was a Green Party member once, you seem to be intent on giving the Greens a very hard time on their blog. Given that you presumably support Green principles, I would hope you are giving much more stick to the Nats & Labs on their blogs, but I don’t have the time to look.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Human Rights Commission said:
“The Commission considers that a principled approach to electoral funding needs to ensure genuine public and political consultation. Given the significance of the changes to the electoral funding regime, there is a need for an extended public participation in a more neutral environment to allow for discussion, debate and contestation of core principles. This has not happened with the proposed legislation, and the opportunity for informed authorisation has been lost.”
The EFB is a case of the foxes saying that they need to guard the hen house because the Boogie man might come. But I don’t see the Boogie man on the Treasury benches so I suspect your argument is flawed.
You ask why the Herald didn’t start it’s campaign against the EFB earlier. My question to you is why didn’t you organise your Citizen’s Assembly earlier?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
mickey said: But I don’t see the Boogie man on the Treasury benches so I suspect your argument is flawed.
I do. His name is Phil Goff, the architect of the Terrorism Suppression Act, and Act described by none other than Rodney Hide as “fascist”. Not often I agree with Rodney, but I do here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i don’t go near labour blogs..
but i go and rattle farrars cage on a regular basis..
i can’t be bothered hunting it down..
but russel published his wishlist on frogblog..
and it is/was the election finance bill..as writ..
ask him for the link..!
i am not making this up..
and yes..i will give the greens a hard time for this bill..
yes..i will give the greens a hard time about their (criminal) inaction on the medical cannabis issue…
yes ..i will give the greens a hard time over the fact most ‘green’ mps..still have their flesh/fat/killing to eat.. addictions running strong..
and as someone who has given up far more addictive drugs than that..i have as much contempt for them/their addictions..as i do for cigarette smokers who whine/whinge that they can’t give up..
yes..i will give the greens a hard time over their silence on the damage wrought to this country by this government they have supported dairy-pimping/polluting/poisoning our land/rivers..
yes..i will give the greens a hard time over their desire to rest/prosecute car drivers with traces of cannabis in their systems..
yes..iwill give the greens a hard time over the fact that for all these years..
they have been largely silent..when they should have been on their hind legs..screaming ‘w.t.f!’..
and yes..i think it has been long enough to need to ‘take stock’..
and look and ask..’what have we actually achieved..?..’
(and please..don’t quote that great supply-abstaining concession you ‘wrung out’ of labour..
that one that had had an uptake of ..zero..?..at last count..?
and more importantly..where are we going..?
and..are we really doing the best we could for the environment..?
and..um..shouldn’t we really stop killing/eating other sentient beings..?
if we are to successfully carry off any persona of an environmentalist..?
so..you see toad..
there is plenty of grist for my mill..
and yes..
it is my intention to continue to sit in the corner going ‘oi..!’
so..i guess you either ‘ban’ me..or get used to it..
or best of all..
straighten up..and fly right..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel, can you please give an example of when a “third party” has “overwhelmed an election”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
is anyone going to actually address the issues and respond to Russel’s suggested changes to the bill? They all sound sensible yes?
“Tweaking the balance of the regulated period and the caps on third parties” doesn’t give much away does it! So do we support changes to the $60,000 limit and the ‘from the 1st of Jan’ part or not? And if so what would be an appropriate figure and date range?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stuey..
going on the offerings to date..i think joy would be a willing player for your proposed round of ’sensible’ ’spin-tag’..
‘what to do..?’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russel Norman’s statements on the political finance ‘reform’ often read like faux radicalism – ie populism. They centre around creating a bogeyman of big money in politics in New Zealand without any real argument to back up the constantly pushed assumption that ‘money buys elections’. Instead it’s just demonisation of interest groups and business political activity. Surely a more sophisticated argument can created? Let’s hear the detail about the affect of money on politics instead of just more rhetoric.
Bryce
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
stuey, you’re right that comment was a bit rushed and obscure.
The Human Rights Commission and others were worried about the cumulative effects of a series of changes to the third party regime. Two of those cumulative effects were the extension of the regualted period to Jan 1, and the cap on third party spending of $60,000 (currently no cap).
So you can change one or both of these variables to address the concern of the cumulative effect ie increase the cap or shorten the regualted period or both. We were working to changes along these lines to address the concerns.
The other cumulative effect was the definition of election activity which threw the net too widely and can be narrowed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
1. “An election ad should be one that actually seeks to influence voting behaviour.”
without this definition all speech is liable to restriction & the act is thus an abuse of human rights. with this definition the act is worthless since it is easy enough to campaign for a party without actually saying that’s what you are doing. there doesn’t need to be an explicit call to vote for a party in order to encourage precisely that behaviour.
8. “Tweaking the balance of the regulated period and the caps on third parties to ensure that there is sufficient ability for groups to have their say in election year without overwhelming the election.”
if there is a cap on an individual organisation, the money men will just create more organisations – no individual one will overwhelm the election, & how can you punish one organisation just because the number of organisations campaigning overwhelms the election, which isn’t the fault of any single organisation?
any attempt to restrain the rich from publicizing their propaganda is unworkable & doomed to failure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You are trying Stuey, its called the EFB
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zippy,
1. I’d say at the last election the EBs nearly succeeded in getting the Nats elected and the Greens kicked out of parliament through their campaign. their only saving grace (!) was that we were able to find out who they were before election day, and who they were was rather unpalatable to the public, and the media then publicised it to the public.
I think a more sophisticated campaign being run by a non religious sect group of wealthy individuals with the same amount of money would have won it for National.
2. And the MMP referendum shows how you can swing the public with lots of money and a reasonably clever campaign. We lost maybe 10%-20% support after the big money campaign got stuck in against MMP. And we only just managed to win it at the end.
3. Act in 1996 only got into parliament because they had so much money to spend. No way they would have made it otherwise.
4. There are a number of academic studies that support the hypothesis that money matters.
R
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try”
how predictable.
it means you shouldn’t try something you know is doomed to failure.
of course you should keep “trying” to think up some way that isn’t doomed to failure. just as we should keep trying to think up ways to travel faster than light. but don’t just put a man in a rocket & point it at the nearest star knowing he’ll be dead & out of fuel before he’s one percent of the way there.
“can you please give an example of when a “third party? has “overwhelmed an election??”
it probably hasn’t happened yet, but the last election gave a bit of a foretaste of what could be. now that door has been opened you can expect it to be more & more of a feature in future elections
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
no word from russel on the futility of the efb that MPs are wasting their time on…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russ
I hope like hell that the changes that have been made to this corrupt bill are not the ones you have been pushing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Russ
I would love to read your comments about this
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/19_problems_still_remaining_with_the _electoral_finance_bill.html
Please do the decent thing and pull your support for this bill, I cannot understand why the Greens of all parties would be supporting this corrupt piece of legislation, by continuing to defend the indefinable we are left with the assumption that you either
1 have a pathological hatred of the EB which is clouding your judgment or
2 You have done a cozy back room deal with Labour.
Either way you this is not a good look for the Greens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frogblog: The blog that avoids the issues.
First the defening silence over the terror evidence and now big bro has to go back 5 days just to make a comment about the backroom deal that has been struck between the Greens and Labour. Instead we have posts about Amazonion Lawsuits and reports that conditions will be less favourable for growing Pinot Noir due to global warming.
BB: Its hard to tell whether the Greens have fallen into the trap of believing their own propoganda about the EB, but i think it is beyond doubt that some sort of deal has been struck.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB: “I hope like hell that the changes that have been made to this corrupt bill are not the ones you have been pushing.”
er why? what’s wrong with the list of changes to the bill? they all look good changes to me, are there any changes in particular that you feel shouldn’t have been made and the Bill should’ve been left as is on those points?
as for which changes the Greens were pushing for, well that was made clear by Russel’s earlier post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)