Second thoughts on campaign finance bill

This is really interesting. I don't know I agree with everything you say but then again there is a lot in here I do agree with.

On the content of the Bill though, do you really think it is about Labour protecting itself? I think a thorough look at this will evidence that whilst the tool is crude, the purpose and intention here is fairly "New Zealand".

That is to say, that not many people in New Zealand would stand for the type of electoral contribution-making that would occur in America, for example, where you can make anonymous donations that are scarily high and where the campaigns become about who has the most money. For the election of the president, for example, you need around $30 million to run a primary and presidential campaign. In New Zealand we have a top limit and that's about fairness, you have a set limit which says if you can't make a case with that amount of money, then you can't make a case at all as to why you and your party should be elected to govern.

In what the Government has sought to do, you can see, well I think, that the intention is the same, to maintain that fairness. The problem is, MMP government means that smaller groups, good or bad, have a greater say. I think it is good, it's obviously more representational. I also think that the Brethren have the right as does every other lobby group - media included Colin - to make their point if they want to.

I think that what happened in the last election must be stopped. I don't mind that the Brethren hate a social democratic party, I dont mind that the unions dont want the impact of a conservative government on labour law, what I do fear, however, is that the law allows for people to make these comments without being held to account for them.

In that respect, a number of changes are necessary in order to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Maybe the tools aren't quite right and maybe the focus is wrong, but surely, if you want to sway public opinion, the public has a right to know who you are and what you stand for.

Why did the Brethren attempt to conceal their contribution? Partly I think it was because they know there is no appetite for a group of people to be hypocritical about what they are saying. "More spending on Defence" yet Brethren members would not allow their children to fight for the protection of New Zealand or its interests is probably the simplest example of that point.

Sure, everyone says the Unions, the Unions! but the point is, why can those people say that? It's because the unions put their name to what they said.

I have a right to privacy on my identity if I express my political view, but I don't think that an organised campaign to sway the mood of the nation, some of which was untrue, is worthy of being protected in the interests of privacy. In that sense, I agree with the tenor of what Mark Burton's Bill is attempting to do.

If you want to make a contribution, a significant one, in an attempt to sway or change the nation, you should own up to it. I don't think the attempts of the Bill are about protecting Labour, sure there is an advantage for a party of middle and lower class membership in imposing such restrictions, but the constitutional intention is good.

That New Zealand is an open, free society, where views can be expressed is a good thing, limiting spend, limiting the rights of groups to propose ideas to change the country with anonymity is a good thing and if you disagree with that, I'd be pretty keen to know why you'd want to spend a million but remain secret. Essentially, if you want to participate, then do it, good for you, but again, it is in the public interest for people to know who you are and what you stand for.

I'm not saying I agree with all the parts of the Bill, but I am saying I agree with the principle.

Thanks Colin.

"I’ve never believed Burton was the sharpest mind in Cabinet"

Do you get Ministers' press secretaries howling in outrage when you write things like that?

It seems to me that in the long run this bill doesn't really benefit the Labour Party either - it does, however, benefit the current leaders of the Labour Party. They'll have a massive advantage when fighting the next election; if they lose they'll almost certainly retire and the new leadership will find their attempts to unseat an incumbent National Government crippled by their own legislation.

Maybe the Labour Party are SO confident they'll claw their way back from their current dreadful poll results that they aren't too concerned about future implications of the bill. More fool them.

Colin makes some excellent points in this post. Probably the most important is about how if John Key bankrolled the National Party there would be a very negative reaction from the public. This is a point that is consistently missed by the proponents of tighter regulation. The fact is that if *anyone* bankrolls a party with millions of dollars the party's high spending campaign is normally a turn-off for most voters. Generally people don't like to see political parties spending huge amounts of money on propaganda - and in that sense there is a natural inbuilt check against financial imbalances in the electoral system. Therefore we need to trust voters to be discerning rather than come down with a heavy hand and regulate every element of political activity. The fact is that money does not simply buy votes, and often an increased expenditure of money by a party corresponds to a lower vote!

Also, Cameron had a number of inaccuracies in his post, but the biggest one I think was about the American system. He said: 'America, for example, where you can make anonymous donations that are scarily high and where the campaigns become about who has the most money'. Are you sure about this? America has probably the most regulated electoral finance system in the world. So it's funny when people say we need much tighter regulation because they don't want NZ to be like the US. I believe anonymous donations are harder to make the US than in NZ, and there is a very low limit on those donations - something like $3000.

Bryce www.liberation.org.nz

Funny thing is, I took her $50 mil comment to refer to the widely held perception that Clark will arrange for $50 mil worth of electioneering publicity via the Comms Offices of various government departments in which there must not be any Setchells. Nothing to do with her personal wealth or lack of. And does anyone seriously not believe this is what will be done to buy the next election?

Bryce, you are right about the American system. There is no limit on how much you can donate to a political party, or how much a party spends (although candidates themselves do have limits). However there is a very low limit for anonymous donations - I believe it's only a few hundred dollars.

The American system might be corrupt in some respects, but it is also one of the most open in the world - far more open than ours. Campaign donors are listed on a federal website which is updated daily throughout the election campaign, so everyone knows exactly who is giving what to whom.

Contrast this to our system, where anonymous donors can tip thousands of dollars into blind trust accounts and parties don't have to declare anything until the year after the election is over!

The American system isn't perfect, but in my opinion it's better than ours.

It amazes me that people still think their votes can be bought. I don't really care who tries to persuade me of what, during an election campaign or at any other time. I can still make up my own mind as NZers clearly did during the last election. My fear is that this government, which has already shown itself to be control freaks with everything from our money to our privacy, now wants to silence all dissent and such use of power is terrifying. We are so unused to this kind of regime in NZ that they are likely to be able to go a long way before they are stopped. Anyone who saw Phil Goff and Annette King go off their rockers in the House attacking John Key got a scary glimpse into a frightening one-party future. I just wish our commentators would start some real analysis and stop aping overseas journos. Iraq and pot smoking are not exactly our issues.

Yes, my example was a flawed one, I stand by what I'd said about it being necessary though, but those are my reasons, not everyone would agree.

Bea, are you serious that Iraq is not our issue? Why would John Key have changed his position and then denied that he had in the face of evidence that in fact he did? And pot smoking isn't an issue? if it were Helen Clark or Michael Cullen or a backbencher like Lynne Pillay, would it have been an issue? Of course it would.

The fact is, and I'm sorry this isn't the right subject here but I'm a little over the excuses, Key claims this to be a personal attack on him, and King and Goff are lambasted for showing his apparent inability to recall simple events... First, what's at issue is not his position on Iraq, it's that he made a statement, changed his mind and then denied he had and then contradicted himself, all in the same 48 hours.

Calling for media to apply some analysis is right, and it's about time the National Party were analysed. David Cameron tried the same old tricks in England, be everything to everyone; at some point someone is going to ask you who you stand for and he won't know.

Sorry Colin, both for my error and for getting off track. But, despite my favour of the social left, I try to be balanced if I write in here, but this irks me.

Also, I suppose Bea you'd support the position Gerry took on Wednesday last week when he said that Iraq was akin to historical wars? Well, fact is, body bags take the children of American parents home every day, still do and will continue to, to claim it's last years news doesn't exactly address the point. Iraq is relevant to everyone, offensive or not and agree with it or not, it's ignorant to claim that because it doesn't suit the National Party's position at the moment to say exactly what they would have done at the time, it is our issue.

It's our issue because we need to know at times like those back in 2002, would a National Party Prime Minister have sent troops in the offensive task, yes they would, oh no they wouldn't but at the time they might have, oh no they wouldn't and never would have... Rubbish.

Count the pollistic flip flops... Iraq is one, Working for Families another, KiwiSaver another, Climate Change issues another, the list goes on and on, coincidentally as the polls shift focus around issues, funnily enough, so does the National Party position.

It's good to see Labour is reconsidering its campaign finance bill, but still worrying to see the current options Cabinet is considering. I agree with Colin in regard to Mr Key's wealth. It really shouldn't matter how much money a party leader has as long as any funding and donations are openly and accurately declared. The public and media I'm sure will judge them on this. I would say the same about thrid party funding.

If the Brethren want to put out attacks on selected parties, fine, as long as each attack clearly states somewhere: "produced and paid for by the Exclusive Brethren Church". The same applies to the CTU and Unions etc and if someone wants to donate their life savings to a political party and as long as it's declared, then let them, it's their money.

I would also expect some new controls and checks on what money from the Prime Minister's Department can be spent on and a published list of what it was spent on. Hopefully that should stop my taxes being spent on Labour Party pledge cards.

The Brethren committed no offence. They merely expressed an opinion that challenged socially dominant leftist views and made the arguments the mainstream media are to cowed to make.

The Brethren did nothing to justify this bill. The need for this legislation is non-existent. This legislation is on the table only because Helen Klark is a control freak leading a party of control freaks.

What surprises me is how this bill got through Crown Law. As it currently stands it is unenforceable. Helen Clark knows this, which is why she has said there will be changes - saying it is up to the select committee to sort it out.

Well, the select committee didnt "sort out" the smacking bill - and this bill is even worse, but easier to come to an agreement on.

Why didnt Klark's minister sort it out in the first place? Could it be because the minister fronting the bill didn't get his way, was bullied by his Cabinet colleagues and now fronts a cock-up of a bill that is currently unenforceable - written this way purely because Labour is annoyed that a state funding bill didn't get passed