Comments on: Open democracy?

By: Private prisons and the ‘tough on crime’ lobby at The Standard

Private prisons and the ‘tough on crime’ lobby at The Standard — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 21:27:30 +0000

[...] we’ve pointed out in the past, the SST has gone to such lengths to hide their funding that they’ve publicly refused to [...]

By: Sensible Sentencing Trust in drag? at The Standard 2.02

Sensible Sentencing Trust in drag? at The Standard 2.02 — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:45:13 +0000

[...] asked before why the trust has refused to register as a third party (or even as a charitable trust) because there is no other reason for them to [...]

By: The Standard 2.01: ACTâ€™s fifth Candidate?

The Standard 2.01: ACTâ€™s fifth Candidate? — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:02:07 +0000

[...] has been previously noted here the Sensible Sentencing Trust has also refused to register under the Charities Act or as a third party under the EFA so there is no public record of its [...]

By: Killinginthenameof

Killinginthenameof — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:12:34 +0000

I kind of feel like there should be custodial sentaces for breaching things like electoral law. All fines ect do is create 2 rates for advertising. your first XXXk of advertising costs you XXXk, and anything above that costs XXXk + XXk fine. The “damage” is already done when they break these laws, slapping a fine on them doesnt go back and undo the illegal electioneering. If there was custodial sentances they might think a bit more carefully before breaking the law, that or there would be a whole lot more people “forgetting” to sign the forms, like National and thier GST incident last time around.

By: lprent

lprent — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 11:25:13 +0000

Swampy: No comparison. From what I understand the EPMU says that they will comply with the provisions of the Act regardless of the decision.

These bozo’s at SST and FF are saying that they will break the law, presumably because they don’t want to reveal their sources of finance or because they plan on breaking spending limits.

Personally, I can’t see any other reasons to avoid a simple registration of an intent to campaign and an accounting of sources of finance. I think that the bullshit I hear from these groups is simply to cover up their backers. To date I haven’t heard anything that makes me change my mind on that despite all of the misdirection that gets floated around.

By: Swampy

Swampy — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 10:57:24 +0000

The EPMU have said they will run their campaign regardless of their status under the EFA. Does this bear a certain level of resemblance to the stance of organisations mentioned above?

By: Ideologically Impure

Ideologically Impure — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:01:26 +0000

[...] and breaking the [...]

By: randal

randal — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:12:35 +0000

this is more computer generated drivel. where is the anti spam filter for this nonsense

By: Ari

Ari — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:37:23 +0000

it is effective only in limiting the funds anyone, or any organisation, can spend opposing the platforms of the political parties who in turn can still dip into their huge war chests.

So your objection is what, the cap should’ve been higher for third-party organisations and lower for political parties? Sounds less like opposition in principle to me than a case of beating up a law that only needs a small practical amendment to accord with your principles.

It also limits the funds you can spend backing up particular parties, so assuming third-party organisations both agree and disagree with well-funded political parties, it can be looked at as perfectly agnostic to NGOs.

By: randal

randal — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:23:41 +0000

send me some money and I will make it disappear for you. no questions asked. $10,000 minimum disappearance fee.

By: Draco TB

Draco TB — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 05:18:14 +0000

it’s been pointed out numerous times in numerous fora that there are any number of ways for big donors to “wash’ funds given to political parties

Links please.

By: Rex Widerstrom

Rex Widerstrom — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:50:40 +0000

Sometimes principles can be a bitch. To be consistent with my opposition to the EFA as it currently stands means I must support the stance taken by two organisations whose positions on most things I vehemently oppose.

I find myself in this position because the EFA is isn’t “about transparency” – it’s been pointed out numerous times in numerous fora that there are any number of ways for big donors to “wash” funds given to political parties – it’s about restriction on free speech… it is effective only in limiting the funds anyone, or any organisation, can spend opposing the platforms of the political parties who in turn can still dip into their huge war chests.

I definitely want to know who’s backing the “Sensible” Sentencing Trust (a misnomer if ever there was one) and Family First, and to what degree. But provided I know that, I don’t care how much they spend. The EFA achieves the precise opposite.

BTW thanks for the link to the Rethinking folks, Irish… I wasn’t aware of them till now. A definite bookmark.

By: Benodic

Benodic — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:18:50 +0000

Dad, your obsession with Wishart’s book is getting boring and does neither of you any credit.

By: dad4justice

dad4justice — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:15:53 +0000

Democracy is a kiwi delusion, just read Absolute Power and you can identify the creepy little anthropoids that are blocking your rights. If that were sorted out then maybe we would get somewhere instead of this onward march to Draconia.

By: higherstandard

higherstandard — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:53:03 +0000

So your supposition is the sensible sentencing trust and Family First are fronts for some nefarious right wing US Christian groups trying to alter political discourse in NZ.

Perhaps you should have posted this on Travellereve’s website seems somewhat far fetched to me