Comments on: Labour’s disrespect for open government

By: Strings

Strings — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:53:50 +0000

SPC
Why should donations be matched by the tax-payer? One thing I really admired about the Obama campaign was that they refuse public funds and only used what they had raised. An example to all in my opinion.

Look at the reality we have here in New Zealand right now. At the next election ACT will be publicly funded, because they are in Parliament. New Zealand First, (Which I hold NO brief for, ) will receive no public funds because they are not in Parliament, despite them winning more votes than ACT. Add to that the idiocy of Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton bot being funded on less than 1% of the popular vote and you have a terrible anomaly.

If all parties have to fund their own campaigns, then there is a good chance that they have some form of popular support, be it individual or corporate, that will provide them with enough to sustain themselves on. This would see an end to the ‘cult’ parties (Dunne, Anderton & Peters for example) and leave only parties with a specific topic or platform of broad interest to take up our time and energy during the election period.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: SPC

SPC — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 05:02:37 +0000

My own position is as it has been for a year or two.

All donations over $1000 have to be declared (before they can be spent and before any election).

I do however allow for tax funding, but only on the principle of matching funds. I mean by this where any donation to a party from an individual is matched dollar for dollar up to $100 (all donations for which matching funds are claimed also having to be declared).

I see this as both transparency and a way to restore a real political voice to the ordinary public (remember most of Obama’s donors only gave $100).

I see this campaign finance reform as a separate matter from the campaign spending mess of this election – the two matters should have been and should be dealt with separately.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Strings

Strings — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:31:48 +0000

Why is there a problem with this?

In my view, ALL donations should be declared, all the time, and NO funding from Tax Revenue (i.e. My Money) should be given to any party. If someone wants to give you money they should be free to do so, as long as we can all know within 24 hours that it has happened, then we can make our own judgements on what, if anything, they expect in return. If they want to retain anonymity they can give to a Trust (like the Spencer Trust) as long as ITS donations are all declared and how many donations were made to the trust are also in the public domain.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: merlinnz

merlinnz — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:32:55 +0000

Good point george. We needed some guts from nats and Lab regarding the EFC. IF they had gone for TOTAL transparency, no more BS trusts etc… the “line” would be very clear. Instead, I suspect, the knee-jerk reaction will be to slink it back to whence it came…

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: georgedarroch

georgedarroch — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 22:28:37 +0000

No wonder they kept that one secret. Which was the whole point of the previous regime, which allowed parties to maintain a pretense of secrecy. This new law isn’t perfect, it still needs a little working out, but you wouldn’t have seen this declaration under the old law.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: frog

frog — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:09:49 +0000

Big Bro – I wrote on this very topic of undeclared donations throughout the campaign – often focused on Labour’s lack of declared donations.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: big bro

big bro — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:00:37 +0000

Its all very well taking the high ground now, would you have said anything if you were part of a Labour/Green government?

I doubt it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)