The Electoral Finance Act

even labour are going to be giving tax cuts at the next election.

but just because national have the same policies as labour doesn't mean that we don't need change. it just means we have to look elsewhere for that change.

 

you do realise that USA is trillions of dollars in debt, right?

i think its bad legislation, in a policy sense and in the way the law is written, but its an attempt by labour to shut down the ability of interest groups to support there chosen parties. so its an inherently my team v your team argument

agreed, and well done to the Labour supporters who have come out and said so as well.

Hone's speech is well worth a read for anyone that missed it:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10483104&pnum=0

of course, but i don't see what that has to do with walmart though... care to elaborate?peteremcc2008-01-22 18:22:18

yeah good call.

I'm hardly a Labour supporter, I just like a good argument. Thanks guys

It is poor legislation. But it is not going to affect the quality of democracy in a significant way. All democracies work on following rules. Like not having two votes say.

i'm more interested in discussing it than electioneering.
infact electioneering would be illegal thanks to the EFA, so i'm definately NOT doing that! :D

if some random was posting here, or if i was posting in the other forums then i'd agree with you, but I regularly post in the other forums and was interested in other peoples views on the efa so posted it here in the off topic.


as for the stadium, theres no doubt its expensive. the auckland one was going to be over a billion.

i'd love to see the phoenix have a nice purpoes built stadium somewhere in wellington, but i see it as unfair to force the whole country to pay for that.

when it comes to democracy, it shouldn't need to be significant. the number of people murdered by the chinese government each year when they try to speak out isn't significant compared to their total population.

you've also mixed up free speech with democracy.
free speech is the right to say whatever you want.
democracy is about listening (or not) to everyone elses ideas and getting to vote for the people you agree with.

if you think its ok to limit money spent, then why not the number of hours someone can volunteer, or the amount of time a policy expert can spend writing policy for a party, or the number of celebrity endorsements a party can receive.

if i decide to get involved at the next election and volunteer for a party, i can influence people and have much more than my fair "1 person, 1 vote" share. but the only kind of influence we limit is money. why is that?peteremcc2008-01-22 18:56:06

Sorry dude, don't mean to get personal... I just feel the "debate" DEMOCRACY UNDER ATTACK- MARTIANS ATTACK...about this bill has been lacking...

yeah, i've met Keith, good guy.

he's right, the level of debate has been bad, but unfortunately, the majority of people aren't interested in debate, they're interested in short clips and catch phrases. so that is what both sides of the argument have concentrated on. national on free speech and democracy and labour on big money and exclusive brethren.

however, i have taken the time to learn about the bill and i don't think it should have be passed, both from an ideological point of view and a practical one too.

whatver your opinion on money in elections, we still shouldn't changing what is essentially our de-facto constitution with a tiny majority in parliament, a rushed through bill with hundreds of errors and hundreds more problems still remaining. and then having the law come into effect just a couple of weeks after it was passed.

thats why theres been so much uproar about the efa. it's not just because its a politically bad law, its also a technically bad law.

if you think its ok to limit money spent, then why not the number of hours someone can volunteer, or the amount of time a policy expert can spend writing policy for a party, or the number of celebrity endorsements a party can receive.

A simple 50% majority to gerrymander an election is clearly wrong.

Mike Moore has a valid point when he speaks of the need for a constitution to prevent such abuses.

thats why theres been so much uproar about the efa. it's not just because its a politically bad law, its also a technically bad law. martinb2008-01-22 19:31:47

Well first off, yes the $120,000 limit is high but that assumes you REGISTER with the government to campaign politically. Thats banana republic, central african style democracy. (Oh and they wanted that limit to be $60,000 to start off with until greenpeace and forest and bird complained).

Second, even if you do register, you are limited to only $20,000 if you campaign in one electorate or if you mention a specific candidate.

Third, If you refuse to register (or don't know that you have to) then you are limited to $12,000 nationally, or $1000 in an electorate.


Well i'm a poor student that doesn't even have $1000 to spend on an election, but lets take an average kiwi who plans to spend, i don't know, $200 supporting national at the next election. That might be the cost of putting a couple of signs up at his house.

Now, lets say that somone announces in August that they are going to run for parliament in Mr Average's electorate and the candidates key policy is to build a new motorway right where Mr Average's house is.

Well now if Mr Average wants to campaign against this person, to say send a letter to his neighbours about the motorway, then he would have to register. And he would also have to include the $200 he had already spent, including receipts. Let's hope he hasn't thrown away the receipt for the staples he used to attach the sign because technically he'd be breaking the law if he didn't include them when he registered. Not to mention the fact that the costs of getting registered (paper work, lawyer time, appointing a financial auditor) are likely to put him over the $1000 just by itself.

Now this is all quite ridiculous, but thats the problem, the law is ridiculous.


As for volunteering and talking to people being free... it's true that you don't have to pay to volunteer but that person is probably giving up work to do that, or at least free time that they could be doing somehting else.

So should we include volunteer time and other things in expenses? How should we measure it? Should it be number of hours times minimun wage? Should it be at the rate the person is normally paid? (would bill gates max out the national parties cap in 20 minutes if he wrote a computer program for them?). How much would the endoresment of Michael Campbell be worth? Should labour have to include all the costs of recording that new song of theirs they've got some famous singer to write for them?

The whole thing is a mess.



As for information, I completely agree with you, but that is about people taking the time to research, its about the media doing their job, etc etc...

BUT Lies and misleading statements should be taken care of in other laws (like defamation) not in electoral finance laws.

the problem being who gets to decide what the constitution would be. even if an independent body is set up to discuss it and make decisions, the government of the day (whoever it is) gets to appoint the people running the independent body.

well im both socially liberal and economically liberal.
so i tend to agree with labour on social issues and national on economic ones.

if i had to choose between national and labour at the moment it would be national, because of the controlling and arrogant way they've gone about things. luckily i don't have to choose either of them :)peteremcc2008-01-22 19:40:24

Sure. I think it would take more than one term to sort it out though, and would be an ongoing process with all political parties buying into it (if possible).

I'm not saying it's easy but look at the alternative.

yeah probably at least 10 years.
i suspect once the queen has died, becoming a repubic will be rolled into the constitution issue as well.

depending on how a republic is set up, it could be dont so there is hardly any change at all - it would be more a symbolic change.

amen to that.

that's the whole idea behind limiting the government's power :)

i agree with someone earlier, mike moore was write. we seriously need a constitution. i think this debate may not be far away, if australia becomes a republic which is likely under rudd then it will spark debate in nz.

 I guess my point here is that one vote is not a vote on every issue, but it is at an election...and that while this is a dodgy issue...the majority of the National party was very happy to return the Employment Contracts Act style days last election, and had some policies whose impact in my opinion would be a lot greater than this bill...

thanks for the chat gotta dash...heh that social philosophy paper came in handy after all- arts degrees help you argue politics on soccer forums yech- though the year after I took it it got changed to Justice, Rights and Freedom!

politcs is as boring as