Trotter on EFB
Chris Trotter used his column in Friday’s DomPost to argue for improvements to be made to the Electoral Finance Bill, rather than throwing it out altogether as the Nats have been calling for.
Trotter argued that the EFB needs to be seen in the context of a society where different people have access to different amounts of money and hence different capacity to try to influence the election outcome. This is of course the reason why election spending by parties is capped, and why there needs to be some kind of spending cap for non-party election activities also.
It’s not the rights of the poorest New Zealanders that will be curtailed by imposing a $5000 cap on individual political advocacy [before they need to register] (or a $60,000 cap on third-party spending); it’s the rights of New Zealand’s richest citizens.
It is their ability to take out $8000 full-page advertisements in daily newspapers; their ability to organise pamphlet drops of thousands into the letterboxes of targeted voters; their ability to organise a massive billboard campaign across the country that the Human Rights Commission has stepped forward so bravely to defend.
And why shouldn’t they? Don’t the rich have rights, too? Of course they do, but only the same rights as everybody else. And it is precisely this principle that the Electoral Finance Bill, in its ham-fisted way, is trying to uphold.
By setting caps on individual and third-party spending at levels that ensure those with the resources to buy a state-of-the-art sound system are not allowed to drown out the unamplified voices of their fellow citizens, the bill seeks to ensure public participation in parliamentary democracy remains practical and meaningful.
The EFB is trying to make elections fairer by having a more level playing field. Yes it is true that the EFB limits the rights of those individuals and organisations who have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on elections, but in the process is trying to protect the rights of the rest of us to have a democracy of sorts.
Rights are not exercised in a vacuum, they are exercised in the real world and in that real world some have more money than others. And the use of that money undermines the rights of those with less money to have a fair election.
The EFB has problems, but none that can’t be fixed by looking at the definiton of non-political party election activities to make it clear that non-parties should only get caught by the cap when their activities are actually directed towards influencing the election outcome - as is done in the UK. It would also be great to introduce caps on anonymous donations and the secret trusts.
Without a modified and improved version of the EFB, our democracy is wide open to getting hijacked by those with millions of dollars to spend on non-party election advertising. As Trotter put it:
Joseph P Kennedy, father of president John F Kennedy, is reputed to have told his son: “To get elected in this country, a man only needs three things: money, money and money.”
If we are not to share the fate of the United States, where plutocracy has replaced democracy, then something like the Electoral Finance Bill must be passed.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“in that real world some have more money than others. And the use of that money undermines the rights of those with less money to have a fair election”
Sez who? Is this the kind of simplistic nonsense driving your support for the EFB?
ACT get exactly how many votes and have how much influence compared to their funding? How much does Jim Anderton or the Greens have? Please demonstrate the relationship with funding.
What if those with lots of money were spending it on policies you like? Would that be undermining a fair election?
Why is there an assumption the interests of those with money are antithecal to the rest of us? Are the rich monolithic in their views?
Just sounds like pure politics of envy to be frank.
September 24th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
what a crock/load of ’spin’ russel..
this was my reading of ‘trotters weird/confused piece/defense of this exercise in repression..
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/what-a-weirdconfused-post-from-chris-trotter/
and it is obvious from your words here..that along with labour..and under ‘urgency’..
and ignoring all the protests from such organisations as the human rights commission..
that you will vote to introduce this repressive/anti-democratic/anti-free-speech/’draconian’ legislation..before christmas..eh..?
and how about that green party cannabis policy..?..eh..?
you kept that very quiet..eh..?
your push/desire/policy to drug-test/prosecute/’bust’ drivers..?
for cannabis-use..?
so russel..
with the exercise in repression that is the electoral finance bill..
your record of doing achieving s.f.a..after all these years..
and now this..
just how much/what percentage of your core/base vote do you think you have now driven away..?
i guess time will tell..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
The fact that Trotter says that we live in ‘a society where different people have access to different amounts of money’ is a very good reason why those of us on the left without the money need to organise collectively, use our much greater numbers in politics, and come up with better political programmes than the rich. Trying instead to ‘level the playing field’ by state intervention into political activity has been shown to be, at best, fairly useless and, at worst, to be draconian and counterproductive.
Just because some old US president said you need money in politics is not a very good piece of evidence. The Greens just keep repeating this idea that money=votes but never actually puts forward real evidence. It’s pretty sloppy really.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 24th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Phil U,
Though I have disagreed with you on other issues on this blog, I agree with you on this one. Personally, I think that a “free for all” on political advertising etc is the only way to go. It is true that people with money will have a louder voice, but this is nothing new … it just makes it more satisfying when they don’t get their way
September 24th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Bryce,
You are correct. I remember the anti-MMP campaign was supported by a few people with a lot of money, yet they were still defeated. Irrespective of what you think of MMP, the campaign for MMP was a good example of how money doesn’t always buy votes.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Samiuela - I think you’re right about the anti-MMP campaign. Also, political commentators at the time reckoned that the millions spent by the anti-MMP Campaign for Better Government actually damaged the anti-MMP campaign, which actually helped MMP get passed.
Voters can be fairly intelligent about such things and are very suspicious of money being spent to sell politics. It was the same with the Exclusive Brethren’s of course - and ironically the Greens probably wouldn’t have crossed the 2005 threshold without the EB’s ‘help’!
So, to some degree there’s a natural inbuilt democratic mechanism in elections that stops money totally dominating.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
The anti MMP campaign was funded and promoted by some very smart people, they could see that the system we have now is about as far as you can get from democracy.
My only hope is that when the Nat’s win the next election they do it with a big enough majority to force another referendum, if you gave the people of NZ the choice they would throw put MMP immediately.
September 24th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
IS everything I write now subject to censorship?
September 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Bryce,
Your website was interesting. There seems to be a belief (on this blog at least) that the “left” support the erosion of individual liberties by the government. This is not universally true.
People have forgotten that radical left wing politics (including communism) has the same historical roots as liberalism (using the original meaning). The meaning of both liberalism and communism changed in the twentieth century; liberalism became associated with government social welfare policies, and communism became associated with a system where the government bureaucracy held all the power.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Democracy is not about all people having an equal opportunity to whisper quietly in backrooms. Democracy is about all people having the wisdom to choose who to vote for with as much public infomation as possible. This bill acts to muzzle the public distribution of infomation. The EFB is anti-democratic in its most basic sense.
A plutocracy on the otherhand revolves around the ability of the elite to control the political process. A plutocracy is protected by laws that legitimise secret payments to corrupted politicians. A veneer of democracy allowed only when the elite control what can be said. The plutocracy protects its politicians by weighting elections in favor of incumbants, like this bill does by restricting electorate challengers to a mere tenth of the incumbants spending power.
This bill is both plutocracy enabling and anti-democratic. Chris Trotter has been bought off by plutocrats.
September 24th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Russell - it is patently misleading to suggest one can just fix the EFB by changing the definition of an advertisement. Almost every clause needs rewriting. The definition of a publication is massively wide. The regime of statutory declarations is unworkable and the entire third party regime will discourage all but the most committed.
Doesn’t even the clear denunciation of the Human Rights Commission as an assault on democracy and free speech make you even pause for a second?
Is your hatred of the Exclusive Brethren so great you’ll flush all your regards for the Bill of Rights down the gurgler? And as I pointed out, the EFB won’t even affect the EB.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:18 am
If the Greens weren’t so bad they wouldn’t have a problem; scratch the surface and you’ll find a cowpad.
jh
September 25th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
I have not read the bill.
I agree with the concept of limiting third parties ability to spend money to create influence in an election. Let them do it the hard way; on the street with all their supporters handing out cheap photocopied leaflets.
As for registering: On the face of it that is quite scary. I did some work with a political party last election, and some work with a group that formed mainly to lobby in the election, and knew people in similar groups.
We did it the hard way. If I had $$$$ spare I would have spent it, and if I was spending then people would have a right to know who I was/am. As we did it the hard way with out money people could see me.
It is a pity that the parties in parliament cannot agree on this. But we do not want He Who Cannot Be Named So Not To Slander doing his best to buy the election again.
No matter how bad this bill and the process around it is it cannot be as bad as the bastard(s) and their big cheques to elect their mates.
W