by frog
The Government is currently consulting on a review of electoral finance, while it may sound a bit boring, at heart it’s about how we stop the corrupting influence of big money on politics.
Stopping big business from influencing politics is probably not Nationals strongest suit …. So its really important that they hear from the people what they want in their democracy. So get stuck in – there’s no guarantee they will listen but its worth giving it a shot!
Here’s some links to Green thinking on electoral finance.
Submissions close 26 June.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Tue, June 9th, 2009
Tags: Add new tag, corruption, electoral finance, honest politics, Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Warning!!!
This is an attempt by the left to stick their dirty hands further into our pockets, they want all of us (I exclude those who do not pay tax) to pay for them to campaign on policies (uncosted policies if they come from the Greens) that will enable them to steal MORE money from us.
As usual they emotive terms such as “democracy” when that has nothing to do with it at all, we all know that the Green version of “democracy” is a long list of things they want to ban and unpopular left wing social engineering being forced down our throats.
I also find it rich for the Greens to speak about corruption when they are the very party that corrupted the MMP system to get Red Russ into the house.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Haven’t clocked off yet Bro?
The buying of seats is corruption exemplified.
Controls must be imo rigid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ParataNui! Such an old lie about Russel, but one of your favourites as we know. -3 points, but you’re still in the black on +4.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Labour Party is bought and paid for by self-interested labour cartels. How is that acceptable, yet you have no qualms about smashing free speech when it’s supposedly “big business” doing the influencing?
Clearly, when you agree with the cause you have no problem with whole political parties being created and financed to the tune of millions of dollars specifically to “influence politics.”
Nothing you can say or do can legitimise your assault on the right of free speech.
The problem is that you have helped to create a state which wields so much power that it inevitably attracts lobbying – either for direct gain or simply to try to fend off the worst of the effects of the state’s meddling.
The solution is to slash the state rather than smashing free speech.
Remember, if you help to confirm the principle that the state controls our speech, you are directly responsible for any and every future extension of restrictions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How about matching funds – where the taxpayer contributes one dollar for every dollar from membership dues or declared donations (up to a maximum amount – maybe $100 or so per individual).
Beyond that, every other dollar used by a political party should also have an identifiable source.
This means no anonymous trusts, no “fund-raising” event anonymity (those donating in this way via event payment have to be individually identified).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
- “where the taxpayer contributes”
Charming euphemism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat dubney: I think that I would be with most Green party members with is crucial that we don’t squash free speech. However, freedom is not simply about not being directly prevented by the government from doing something, it is about having the power to do it. Sadly, our economy is so distorted that a select few control the vast majority of the resources in this country, and they gain these resources not because they do the most for other people or the environment, but rather, because they had more to start with, and they acted more selfishly in pursuit of profit than anyone else.
Our society is built on the principle of one person, one vote. With our economy distorted the way it is, only a small minority of people have any real ability to pay for any significant amount of publicity. People won’t vote for the best ideas if they don’t know about them. This creates a ‘one dollar one vote’ type situation – and this in turn causes those with the most money to seek policies which will give them even more money, further distorting the economy.
I think the best solution is to ban any for profit organisation from paying anyone to promote or advertise policies (there is no free speech issue here because the stakeholders can still speak up as individuals if they decide to on their own initiative), and to ‘normalise’ political donations by total income.
So, for example, if a natural person earned $35,000 over the last 12 months, and they make a donation of $100 to political organisation A, then they have contributed 100/35000 = 0.0028571 points to organisation A. Let’s say that another natural person earned $350,000 over the last 12 months, and they donated $2000 to political organisation A, then they have contributed 2000/350000 = 0.0057143 points.
At the end of the month, the total number of points would be the sum of the points from each individuals. If these were the only donations, then across all political organisations, 0.0085714 points and $2,100 has been donated. This is $245000 / point. Therefore, organisation A’s share is $245000 / point * 0.0028571 point = $700. It is therefore owed $600. Organisation B’s share is $245000 / point * 0.0057143 point = $1400, so it owes $600.
Because the wealthy have a higher percentage of their disposal income, this is actually still biased towards those with more. However, it is a lot better than the status quo.
This system means that ideas which lots of people care a lot about (and therefore will pay a high proportion of their income to promote) will get promoted, and those which not many people care about – and even if the few who do care are very wealthy – will still get promoted.
I think for this to work, any non-profit organisation which donates to political groups would itself need to be classified as a political group, and hence be subject to the system. It is also important that organisations are genuinely not-for-profit, or it could be abused.
I think it is important that this system doesn’t require government approval / pre-registration or lengthy delays, otherwise there are genuine freedom of speech problems with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB, Wat…
The gross distortion of claiming that “Paid Advertising” is “Free Speech” is far more offensive than the prospect that everyone gets the same ability to speak in paid-for advertising forums at the expense of some taxpayer funded advertising dollars.
The most vocal opponents of these limits are the people who sell the advertising.
Just what it is about blowing ever increasing sums of money spreading disinformation about everyone else that so attracts you? The alternative is significantly cheaper and can be far more effective.
The complexity of the points scheme is not that great. Perhaps this is better. I’m letting it percolate a bit.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well wat, the principle is used in US Presidential elections, it is used when the government tops up a fund-raising appeal on this basis ($ for $) as happens from time to time.
It ensures that private support has to exist for the party before it receives the state funding and the state funding is no more than supplied to the party from the public.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>blowing ever increasing sums of money spreading disinformation
But it’s ok for politicians to do so on a daily basis? And we have no pay for it, whether we agree with it or not.
Cuts both ways. The state has got it’s grubby paws in business, so business has a right to voice opinion about it.
The Greens will always be remembered for their attack on free speech.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But it’s ok for politicians to do so on a daily basis? And we have no pay for it, whether we agree with it or not.
Churchill’s comments come to mind about democracy being the worst form of govt except for all the rest.
Cuts both ways. The state has got it’s grubby paws in business, so business has a right to voice opinion about it.
Absolutely. They just shouldn’t have a bigger say than anyone else.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP
First of all, the conflict between the principles of “free” speech and “democratic” elections is well understood and whatever your political leanings or where you think the balance must be, you have to admit that a balance between the two MUST be struck.
In other words, a free and democratic society must have both free speech and democratic elections but perfectly “free” speech renders a fair and free democratic election process impossible, yet election rules and finance measures that restrict free speech can EASILY be overdone to favour the incumbent powers.
Do you not agree?
Secondly: “But it’s ok for politicians to do so on a daily basis? And we have no pay for it, whether we agree with it or not.” Two parts there. The first is that we never said it was OK for pollies to spread disinformation on a daily basis but they DO have a job to do. The conflict between the power of the incumbency to influence an election and the need to actually continue to have a functioning government during the campaign is quite real and well recognized. It is an EXCELLENT reason for keeping the campaign period as short as possible.
I note here that my proposal for limiting the power of the incumbent by removing its ability to CHOOSE when the next election is to occur and instead having the timing be selected by lottery (on any given day the election could be 40 days away, and they do not know when it will be) still remains unconsidered. You want to keep the incumbents honest? So do we.
Thirdly: At no time have the Greens EVER attacked FREE speech. We have a lot to say about the “paid for” varieties. Your overzealousness leads you into egregious error and I shudder when I consider what must pass for truth in your worldview, but that’s YOUR problem
Just MY opinion now:
There is a time and a place for everything. If a business wants to take out an advert saying party X is the better choice, or a union pays for adverts espousing the virtues of party Y, that’s all fine much of the time… though I would like to have a special category of law reserved for people who LIE about any party’s published policy.
Something cheap to prosecute and expensive when they lose.
That would not only discourage the liars but would encourage the parties to actually HAVE published policies. Might get them to look hard at how they word some of those policies too (and there are some Green policies I include in that).
However, there is a point at which I want to hear JUST what a party itself says about its policies… not what the Reverend Scudders say its policies are, not what the Federated Trade Uniions say its policies are, not what the Business Council says its policies are.
That implies that for a short time (not more than 45 days, preferably 20-30 ) before an election, all those other folks DO have to shut down. The news continues, FREE speech continues, but the advertising in this period is paid for and restricted.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
However the balance is struck, the point of this all is that there MUST be a balance struck.
Lying about what we do and think, doesn’t help.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis >>They just shouldn’t have a bigger say than anyone else.
Politicians do. And they do so on our dime.
The Green Party is there because they want to influence politics. They want to get their own way and exert control over our lives. They are backed by big money to do so, both private and public. They get media attention, because of their position, and they don’t need to pay a cent for it.
Yet, when business does likewise, that’s evil?
Face it – you want your voice to be louder than the rest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You have no clue what I want. Your whole post is essentially another big straw man, claiming that I’d shut out other voices. I would sooner support forcing the media to open up to the many voices currently cut out of the debate than that.
Yes, being in Parliament provides a platform for politicians. That’s legitimate because people give parties the right to speak on their behalf by voting for them. I say this as a supporter of a small party who takes issue with how the great majority of politicians use their discursive power. If you hadn’t noticed, the Greens don’t exactly dominate the media. The NatLabs get far more than their share. That there is a limit on what all politicians can spend is good. That there is a limit on what others, be they unions or business interests, can spend on behalf of those same politicians is also good. The only evil is pretending that removing spending rules would make the situation more fair and not less.
And how about answering BJ’s questions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is not acceptable. Political parties that owe their allegiance to union elites is, in principle, as bad as political parties who owe their allegiance to business elites.
That said the union movement is a shadow of its former self, and to describe it as “labour cartels” is puffing it up unreasonably.
As for…
WTF??
Big money? I guess the million or so paid in salaries to the parliamentary team is big money by my standards (though it cannot be used for party development) where is the big private money? Why haven’t I seen any of it? We struggle and struggle to raise money for the party, and all this time we have been backed by Big Private Money. Jeeze!
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bjchip,
You invent a totally artificial condition that I do not have the perfect and inaliable right to publish my opinions, on the grounds that I will have paid to do so.
By the same token, the state can close down any newspapers it disapproves of, because they are paid for; and it can stifle your internet ramblings because costs are involved in their delivery. And all entirely legitimately according to you.
The American revolution was ignited by pamphleteers who paid for the things to be printed. Now you tell us that they had no right to disseminate their views in that way, and that the state had a right (no, an obligation) to suppress them by force.
A1kmm,
You can dream up all the complicated schemes you wish, but the fact remains that you do not have the right to impose them. It’s that simple. However much you may decry what you feel are the effects of other people peacfeully exercising their freedoms, it does not give you the right to initiate violence against them.
As I said before, Labour is owned by the labour cartels as part of a well-funded rent-seeking exercise to force the rest of us to pay higher prices. It is the very definition of corruption. Why not abolish the Labour Party?
You’re talking about abolishing free speech around election time, but there’s no logical reason to limit yourself once you establish the principle that the state can dictate what can and can’t be said.
In Austria, Holocaust denial is a crime. Do you agree with that as well? It has been proposed that denial of global warming also be made a crime. Do you agree with that as well?
If you are worried that the “wrong” people might get elected to power, then you’d better campaign for a state with such limited powers that they can’t use it as a vehicle to control others. Because that’s what this whole issue boils down to: the left want a state with complete control over all of us, but it doesn’t want its opponents gaining control of their monster.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat is suffering from something I’ve coined “Perigosis” and man he has it bad tonight. It’s the involuntary hyperventilation some experience when presented with anything that doesn’t fit their extreme Libertarian programme. It often leads to shrill proclamations that jackboots are just around the corner and the end of free society is nigh if the revolution doesn’t start immediately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That was nothing but a nervous giggle, Valis.
You’re not alone in finding talk of liberty strange and somewhat frightening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Never afraid of talk, wat. It was the drooling mania – I mean nervous giggle – that scared me a touch. Slow breaths now and it’ll be fine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)