Compliments and questions

25 comments on “Compliments and questions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stephen 1

   18 September 2008 at 3:57 pm

   The donations are “to help the democratic process” now? What was it before? Or is it helping the process if it goes to both parties?

   Dunno why you’d donate a similar amount to both parties, surely better to throw your weight behind the ‘best’ choice…

   Good point on Ben Thomas.
2. the sprout 2

   18 September 2008 at 4:12 pm

   Any party that gets 2% of the vote but receives the millions that ACT does is going to be bent.

   A chocolate fish for the first journalist with enough balls to dig into ACT’s finances.

   ACT declares $32k out of $1M spent and we’re supposed to be its legitimate? Very very few kiwis would if they were made aware of it.
3. toad 3

   18 September 2008 at 4:13 pm

   Will be interesting to see if the Greens get anything from the Road Transport Trust, given that the Greens propose to divert a lot of Government funding into public transport infrastructure that National and Labour propose for roading infrastructure.

   Or is the Road Transport Trust just funding the parties who will do their bidding?
4. Idiot/Savant 4

   18 September 2008 at 4:25 pm

   Or is the Road Transport Trust just funding the parties who will do their bidding?

   I think the answer to that is obvious. Why fund them otherwise?

   BTW, good pointer to Ben Thomas – I hadn’t seen his latest, and its damn interesting.
5. Ari 5

   18 September 2008 at 4:32 pm

   Holy flying pigs! It’s New Zealand political journalism! 😀

   captcha: Barnyard Attorney. ^_^
6. Wondering 6

   18 September 2008 at 5:42 pm

   Or is the Road Transport Trust just funding the parties who will do their bidding?

   Why on earth would you expect to get funding from someone whose policies you oppose? If I was ever going to donate to a political party, it would be because I agree with their policies.
7. the sprout 7

   18 September 2008 at 5:47 pm

   yeah that’d be like Owen Glenn donating to NZ First
8. toad 8

   18 September 2008 at 5:49 pm

   Some corporates purport to donate on the basis of “promoting democracy” and “being a good corporate citizen” regardless of policy.
9. weka 9

   18 September 2008 at 6:43 pm

   splitting one source of money between multiple donors

   How does that work?
10. Ari 10

    18 September 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Why on earth would you expect to get funding from someone whose policies you oppose? If I was ever going to donate to a political party, it would be because I agree with their policies.

    “Do your bidding” implies a subservient relationship where the party serves their donors, not an agreement of principles. Understanding your fellow commentators saves time.
11. vto 11

    18 September 2008 at 7:46 pm

    I always understood many corporates and institutions and individuals donated across the spectrum. And yes it really is in order to do their bit in being a good citizen – it surprises me that you are surprised at this SP. Perhaps a little more exposure to the typical so-called ‘tory’ outside of Wellington would help in fostering that wider view (excuse the assumptions).
12. Phil 12

    18 September 2008 at 8:29 pm

    Re: ‘tory’

    Is it OK if we (the collective ‘tories’) start calling you “Whig?”

    Seriously dude… the 18th Century sent a messenger, they want their name back.
13. Quoth the Raven 13

    18 September 2008 at 8:35 pm

    The conservatives in britain still call themselves tories. What’s wrong with calling the conservatives tories here.
14. Anita 14

    18 September 2008 at 8:37 pm

    weka,

    splitting one source of money between multiple donors

    How does that work?

    Let’s say I want to give $50k to ACT. Under the old rules donations over $10k had to be declared, so instead I give $10k, my partner gives $10k, our family trust gives $10k, the company we own gives $10k, our daughter gives $10k. I provide each of those $10k amounts to the donor. Nothing is declared, it’s all legal under the old rules.

    Similarly big companies washed money through subsidiaries.

    Which is why, flawed as it is, the EFA is a huge step forward for transparency.
15. Greedy Pig 15

    18 September 2008 at 9:12 pm

    Over at the landlord says blog:

    “Meanwhile the National Party released its immigration policy. You may wonder what this means for the property market. It is clear from research that immigration is one of the key drivers of house price growth.

    The logic is simple. If you import more people into the country, then you need more houses. Supply and demand means that prices are then pushed up, this is particularly so in Auckland.

    While the latest immigration numbers show the number of people coming into New Zealand is starting to rise, the Nat’s policy looks like it wants to increase immigration levels even further. (Although it is unclear what sort of number they are targeting.)
    This policy is, arguably, a plus for people who want house prices to rise. (But may be not so good for first home owners wanting to buy.)

    My guess has always been that property investors lean heavily towards the right rather than the left. (This was made clear in an email newsletter I saw from one developer this week.)”

    Not that I’m implying National is funded by property developers etc.
16. Steve Pierson 16

    18 September 2008 at 11:15 pm

    weka. Anita’s description is right. You have one source of money (one rich guy, one company) but that source gives the money to other people or legal persons who then give the money on to the party. It’s kind of the opposite of the donation pooling to trusts that then pass it on to parties but the effect is the same, disguising the ultimate source of the money. Both practices are called funneling and are banned by the EFA.
17. Steve Pierson 17

    18 September 2008 at 11:18 pm

    Stephen. Take a look at the donation records… you’ll see that there are several major companies (Westpac, Sky City) who give to the parties, usually the same amount to the major parties and a smaller amount to the minor parties. They do this out of a philosophy that in a healthy democracy parties should have access to the funds they need to campaign without having to snuggle up to donors who want something back from them… or maybe they do it to stay in everyone’s good books.
18. outofbed 18

    18 September 2008 at 11:34 pm

    http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4319/
    Winnies back
19. insider 19

    18 September 2008 at 11:44 pm

    Ouch look at those Auckland numbers…
20. Idiot/Savant 20

    19 September 2008 at 12:48 am

    Weka: How does that work?

    It’s called “money laundering”. And it has no place in a democratic society.
21. Idiot/Savant 21

    19 September 2008 at 12:54 am

    Insider: Ouch look at those Auckland numbers

    You might want to take another look at the date on those.
22. insider 22

    19 September 2008 at 9:39 am

    I did and the direction was down. Is there any reason to think they have risen with overall Labour rating down?
23. DS 23

    19 September 2008 at 11:52 am

    >>>I always understood many corporates and institutions and individuals donated across the spectrum.<<<

    Big Business is very pragmatic in the way it donates to political parties. While it prefers National, it’ll quite happily throw money in Labour’s direction as well in order to stay in Labour’s good books.
24. Phil 24

    19 September 2008 at 12:54 pm

    I/S, Weka

    Actually, it’s called “smurfing”.

    Say you rob a bank, and have wads of cash sitting about. You want to put that money into an electronic account to move it around and buy stuff, but clearly can’t rock up to the local BNZ branch and deposit it all at once.
    So, you employ a legion of accomplices to take a small parcel of that cash (maybe $1-$2 thousand) deposit it in a new account, and then transfer it into your account at a later date.

    In the political context, where you need a much smaller band of willing participants, I can’t really see any realistic way of stopping the practice (if indeed it really happens) short of banning private funding of political parties… which I don’t support and doubt will ever be proposed.
25. Idiot/Savant 25

    19 September 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Phil: In the political context, where you need a much smaller band of willing participants, I can’t really see any realistic way of stopping the practice (if indeed it really happens) short of banning private funding of political parties which I don’t support and doubt will ever be proposed.

    I can: lower the disclosure threshold to, say, $500. This massively increases the amount of work launderers have to do to evade transparency.

    (Oh, and I should point out that this practice is illegal under the EFA and that if party officials know of it, they must report it or go to jail. A few symbolic prosecutions should encourage les autres…)

    [Tane: Not sure why, but you always end up in our spam filter. Lynn, could you have a look when you get a chance?]

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS