by frog
It’s time for another quick update on the electoral donation declarations. It’s now just 11 days to the election and Labour, United Future, the Maori Party, New Zealand First and the Progressive Party are still yet to declare any donations of $20,000 or greater. National has declared only $60,000 so far while Act and the Greens, with their much smaller campaign budgets, have declared $200,000 and $183,000 respectively.
The purpose of this part of the electoral finance legislation is to let voters know who is funding parties’ election campaigns. It’s time the other parties, especially Labour and National, let the public know who is behind their campaigns, or explained how they are funding multi-million dollar campaigns without any large donations at all. Surely they are not embarrassed by who funds their campaigns?
Published in Campaign | Justice & Democracy by frog on Tue, October 28th, 2008
Tags: electoral donation declarations, Electoral Finance Act
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
But the EFA wasn’t about transparency of funding. It was about shutting people up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Notice Rodney Hide on the leaders debate giving his position on raising the alcohol debate “no+ and can I say ” {people who get prosecuted for protecting themselves} Very much like he didn’t want people to dwell (much like when TV One switches from BBC to “our advertised program”. Peter Dunne also on the Booze Barons side ($)?. I’ve also heard Peter Dunne support the tobacco lobby and (of course) real estate agents….. hmmmmm?
Now all those $ubdivisions and developments. That’s where “needed skills” come in and National wants to make it easier for business migrants (= dangle money in bank account… for the photo opportunity?). The property council want to do away with red tape (and height restrictions). Of course all these outfits employ PR Companys
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter Says:
October 28th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
> But the EFA wasn’t about transparency of funding. It was about shutting people up.
no it wasn’t. It was about transparency of funding.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is a scandal going after Winston was to draw attention from themselves.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I thought ACT was a big election spender, I have seen them used in the past as an example that spending big on elections doesn’t necessarily equate to getting votes?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>no it wasn’t. It was about transparency of funding.
Then you’ve supported and passed an abject failure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
For all its faults, it certainly hasn’t been a failure in this regard. Winston could never get away with what happened under the old rules and Brethren type parallel spending hasn’t occurred (yet).
That National and Labour are likely gaming the system by getting all their big donors to give last year is a problem for sure. It will even be worse when the Nats force us back to the old spending rules.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am not sure why you are surprised that National and Labour have not disclosed a bigger number of $20,000 plus donations.
The EFA was not about greater disclosure of donations – that was a charade, a sham.
If I wanted to give either National or Labour $100,000 without it being disclosed it is entirely possible to structure a donation that way. In fact I explained how to the Rotary Club of Otahuhu at lunchtime today.
Disclosure is optional.
In my efforts to stop the Bill being passed I spoke with one MP who subsequently voted for the Bill who boasted that the loopholes in the proposed legislation would still enable his party to get donations without disclosure.
The EFA was a deliberate blatant attempt by a government to stop and restrict debate for the full election year. As Dr Helena Catt has said it is having a “chilling effect” on participation in this election.
I believe the parties who passed the EFA are not fit to govern New Zealand, and my team delivered close to 20,000 letters in Auckland’s North Shore electorate over the weekend saying so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
did your ‘team’ wear their scarves?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Greens talk a lot about the need for financial transparency in politics, and the party also makes a lot of allegations about the political finances of other parties – much in the way that Winston Peters has until recently.
But just how transparent is the Green Party. I’ve tried to put together a historic account of the party’s finances, which you can read at the link below. But it’s very hard to find info, and like NZ First, the party is somewhat less open than you’d expect.
See: The finances of the Green Party, at:
http://liberation.typepad.com/liberation/2008/10/political-fin-1.html
Obviously this account is just a draft, and I’d be very appreciative of any feedback or corrections.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Perhaps the silence indicates the Greens are embarrassed by who funds their campaigns.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I guess we will see, BP, and if you are wrong with your implication, let’s remind you of it often.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Merely repeating what the ever-polite Frog stated….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t know about anyone else on this list, but I have no idea where all our donations come from. I can say that heaps comes from members, because I’ve been at the fund raising events
So I can’t comment on all that detail from Bryce, except to note that he has shown on this list before that he has quite an imagination. The most recent example would be his analysis of our billboard campaign, where he drew conclusions that were somewhat distant from the information presented.
Btw, I don’t think the Greens have ever said that parties books should be completely thrown open. I’m sure we’ve said that laws around declarations of big donations should be pretty strict. The criticism of other parties has come when it appeared laws were being broken. This is often around the use of trusts to launder money, something that even Bryce doesn’t accuse us of.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis says: ” The criticsm of other parties has come when it appeared laws were being broken”
What makes you think laws are being broken?
I have explained it is perfectly possible to structure large donations so they are not disclosed.
Even Bryce Edwards says this when he says it is possible to “get around ” the provisions of the EFA. That is not breaking the law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>For all its faults, it certainly hasn’t been a failure in this regard.
It has.
There will be no disclosures by those parties, because the EFA doesn’t demand they make them.
As John points out….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“What makes you think laws are being broken?”
I was talking generally, not about the EFA, and had no specific case in mind.
“There will be no disclosures by those parties, because the EFA doesn’t demand they make them.”
OK I have to admit I don’t know enough to say otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis that is my point…..when you say you “do not know enough to say otherwise” ….you have merely fallen for the line that the EFA is all about financial transparency.
It is not.
It is a sham.
It is about restricting the rights of NZers to criticise their government in election year. And that’s what makes it, and the Green Party support of it, abhorrent in a so called democtratic society.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes it was poorly done and is “chilling” – is anyone able to remember any differences between this year’s campaigning and the campaigning of the last election? I’m not sure if there has been a difference, really, but perhaps it is what has *not* happened that is the key here…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>is anyone able to remember any differences between this year’s campaigning and the campaigning of the last election?
I don’t know about the rest of New Zealand, but round here it feels like the only people who have anything to say about the election are the existing parties….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP “round here” meaning what ?
this blog, the blogsphere, your physical neighbourhood, etc…
I’ve heard lots from non Parliamentary players in this election:
- newspaper adverts
- letterbox leaflets
- so called research by BRT etc in the media
- candidates meetings with many parties represented
- letters to ed
Maybe you need to get out more ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Though it’s not like they ever get coverage…I live in Auckland’s inner suburbs, and i’ve seen billboards for the Alliance, Kiwi Party, Libertarianz and the Family Party. And I know that the Libz have been handing out leaflets and one of them has even turned his car into an advertising hoarding. So they are hardly being suppressed…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# BluePeter Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
>> I don’t know about the rest of New Zealand, but round here it feels like the only people who have anything to say about the election are the existing parties….
around here (Eastern suburbs of Welly), it’s National, Labour and the Greens, followed by the Worker’s party (who I had never heard of previously, and who appear to be broadly communist). The fact that the Worker’s Party have a higher profile than ACT or NZ First here shows that it’s definitely not about incumbency.
The Green Party billboards would be the most common on private property. I’m guessing that’s as much for aesthetic reasons as political ones – people may be more comfortable about displaying their favourite party’s billboard if it’s a positive addition to the streetscape.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)