by frog
No I’m not talking about not Ian Wishart’s one. The fact the both major parties are currently so lacking in major donors seems a scandal. It’s now only three weeks to the election and yet, as of ten days ago, Labour hasn’t declared a single received donation over $20,000 this year to help fund its estimated $2.4 million dollar campaign. National has had 2 donations of $30,000 each – still a long way from it’s estimated campaign budget. It’s possible National stockpiled a treasure chest before the Electoral Finance Act came into force, and has done no fund-raising from large donors this year, but it seems unlikely that Labour could have done the same. It’s also unlikely that either party has fund-raised it’s entire budget from small donations.
An integral part of the Electoral Finance Act was to let the public know who was funding parties’ campaign before the election took place. The public is now running out of time to find out who is financing Labour and National this election and decide whether it is going to effect their votes.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Sat, October 18th, 2008
Tags: , donations, Electoral Finance Act, funding, labour party, national party
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Labour must have sold alot of “citizens tickets” this year.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The EFA was about transparency? News to me. It was always about shutting down debate. Which it has done.
None so blind as those who will not see….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sad that criminals can buy their way into New Zealand.Needless to say the greens will toke up and laugh about it, because they’re on the pigs back with Aunty Hell running the corrupt show!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe now that they are public the donors no longer want to donate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Has anyone anaylsed a wish list and who is likely to donate.
1. The Property Council (20 $B industry)…. cut through red tape. Increase immigration. National making noises already
2. Stop bashing REINZ…. United Future.
3. Global Warming isn’t happening. .. consumption is good … Act.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“The EFA was about transparency? News to me. It was always about shutting down debate. Which it has done. “
in what way? do you actually know anyone who wanted to spend more than $120000 on spreading a message this election? and how are advertising campaigns debates anyway? they’re one-way broadcasts.
the EFA is not perfect, but certainly preferable to the system before it.
no one’s stopped you from contributing to the debate on frogblog despite your constant trolling.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
120000? I think you’ll find the limits are somewhat south of that figure.
Secondly, you wouldn’t know who they are, because they’ve been silenced. Thirdly, annominity services a purpose. Government contracts are at stake, not to mention the risk of being persecuted through the media, as Helen did to the EB.
>>the EFA is not perfect, but certainly preferable to the system before it.
It is not preferable. It is a travesty. It is designed to shut organisations up.
>>no one’s stopped you from contributing to the debate on frogblog despite your constant trolling.
Partly due to a bizarre blog clause, and partly due to the fact it is aimed at organisations, not individuals.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
When the election is called I actually want to hear the policies and the parties, not the half-baked opinions of hacked-off half-wits who happen to have money to spend. In other words, for a while before the election I’d like EVERYONE to have to “SHUT UP”.
This has the vast advantage of allowing people to look at what the parties themselves are saying without the noisy idiocy that gets pumped into the lounge the through the glass teat.
It also has the advantage of costing less… though the media would not see that as an advantage
That isn’t what we got… and we struggled with the decision about what was on offer from the party in power… but even the EFA is better than the way you seem to think things should be run.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog! ‘it’s’ is a contraction of ‘it is’ or ‘it has’. Correct grammar please!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well BJ, you should be pleased with a full page fluff piece on the Greens in the daily rag by a Mr Tim Hume that reads like the Greens would have paid for a full page advertisement like that.
Of course, under the EFA that kind of coverage isn’t “costed” into the budget, it’s supposedly just the main stream media doing some reporting.
I’ll be interested to see their full page spreads on ACT, Libz and the Family Party….
…or do they have to pay for their own full page advertisements? Oops, money’s used up. How fair was that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ryanbob, you only need two exclamation marks for a travesty of that nature.
Three is more applicable to the Greens Population Policy !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ZenTiger Says:
October 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
> Well BJ, you should be pleased with a full page fluff piece on the Greens in the daily rag by a Mr Tim Hume that reads like the Greens would have paid for a full page advertisement like that.
Yes that article should do us some good, but I don’t know if it’s enough to cancel out the damage done by TV3’s inaccurate reporting of our population policy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen
If it had been in a paper that actually had national scope and readership it might have been more effective in offsetting the damage.
Furthermore you’ve touched on one of the limitations. We don’t have any way and don’t know of any way and DO NOT WANT any way, to limit reporters from telling the truth. Yes, it was a positive article and I was frankly, surprised to see it. Astonished would be an appropriate word.
That we have to complain to the Broadcaster responsible for the TV3 coverage and potentially to the BSA is a bit of a nuisance. Yes, they pulled the offending material… after the damage was done. As you well know the truth never does catch up with the lies.
BP – Once again you meet the truth and rather than recognize it, you label it bizarre. There are worse ways of having this than the EFA. The EFA is not the best possible way of dealing with it either, it was what was offered. I am not ashamed that we took it. Limiting the power of money is damned hard but IS necessary.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>I am not ashamed that we took it.
You should be.
You’re playing the same card the greens always play: “it’s not ideal, and after much deliberation and soul searching, we supported it”. Same old, same old.
The truth, BJ, is that credible organisations had serious misgivings, and it was rushed through. That should have been enough to send it back to committee. The only reason it was rushed was to help save this election for the left.
A party of principle would have made sure they GOT IT RIGHT. They should have grown a spine and said “THIS IS NOT RIGHT. We can do a better job for the people of New Zealand”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
We will not agree on this and you know it.
Lecturing me about it gets the same response as every other person has ever gotten who has told me what I should think about something.
Fnck off.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Charming.
>>Lecturing
Stone. Meet glass house.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Lecturing me about it gets the same response as every other person has ever gotten who has told me what I should think about something.”
Heaven forbid!
You might actually come to the realisation that the Greens are nothing more than hard left socialists/communists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think you’re in lala land if you think anyone will do anything on the Libz or FP, but ACT – perhaps. They’re obviously in a different situation in that they have accomplished nothing tangible in the last nine years. Their leader has a higher profile (mostly dancing but some Winston), but not because of anything party-related, and all that stuff has been done to death. But that’s just me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“They’re obviously in a different situation”
…to the Greens, that is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)