The electoral finance rules
At yesterday’s get together for parties, the Electoral Commission and the office of the Chief Electoral Officer I had a chat with various electoral staff about the third party regime.
Of those I spoke to, they were of one mind that the ads that Tim Shadbolt had published, expressing his opposition to the govt policy that would he says lead to funding cuts to the SIT, would not be touched by the Electoral Finance Act because they were clearly issue ads, not election ads. Tim’s statements on radio that he may run a campaign to bring down the govt were irrelevant to the interpretation of the ads. As all of them, and me, said, obviously the regime is not intended to stop people criticising govt policy - taking a position on issues is untouched.
Of course if Tim placed ads saying ‘bring down the govt’ then they would be election ads and have a $120,000 cap.
On the question of the policy surveys that groups often carry out, comparing one party’s policies against another, they were of the view that they could be issue ads or they could be election ads, depending on the content. If they were election ads and the group spent more than $12,000 they would need to register with the Electoral Commission. The registration process they described was not at all onerous and there are very few grounds for rejecting registration.
After the campaign of misinformation being run by the Herald it was refreshing to hear some people actually talk about the reality of the rules and how they would implement them. My worry is that the Herald’s ridiculous and biased coverage of this issue is havng a chilling effect on free speech as people wrongly believe that they can’t say what they like.
December 20th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Yet the EC considered the Crazy Car ads would be election ads…
December 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am
YOu don’t consider having to register your details in order to be able to speak your mind at all concerning no matter how unonerous the process might be?
You are not concerned that some might not be allowed to register?
December 20th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Insider the EC did not say that. I asked her about it specifically on another occasion. She just said it needed to be looked at, which is her job.
You only need to register if you spend over $12,000 on election ads - not to speak your mind. Then you need to tell the EC who you are. You can only be refused if the name is offensive, likely to be confused with the name of a candidate or party, or likely to mislead the public. The aim is transparency. The last election showed a desperate need for transparency.
December 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
expressing .. opposition to the govt policy that would he says lead to funding cuts … would not be touched by the Electoral Finance Act because they were clearly issue ads, not election ads. Tim’s statements on radio that he may run a campaign to bring down the govt were irrelevant to the interpretation of the ads.
and then: Of course if Tim placed ads saying ‘bring down the govt’ then they would be election ads and have a $120,000 cap.
So, are you saying that I can run an uncapped series of ads saying “bring down the government over the issue of waiting lists” because now I’m speaking to an issue?
Are you saying we can be confident of our interpretation and don’t have to register with the government to speak our mind in this case? Or are you saying everyone needs to register on any issue, but they will not be capped as long as they mention an issue, and they needn’t worry about the Greens calling for groups they don’t like to have the EFB applied in that situation, whilst ignoring other cases?
December 27th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I think Zen, that if you leave out the “Bring Down the Government” part but say that the Waiting Lists are a blight on the reputation of NZ and an insult to civilized people everywhere you’d be fine.
In other words, keep it out of the realm of electioneering and people can draw their own conclusions about which party is responsible for which policies.
respectfully
BJ