Here’s an idea: electoral funding

25 comments on “Here’s an idea: electoral funding ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Philj 1

   11 January 2014 at 6:23 pm

   Xox
   Great idea. Except expensive turkeys won’t vote for an early Christmas. It took Parliarment about 80 years to get daylight saving sorted! What about sponsors logos on their business suits in proportion to their political donors contributions?
   • Akldnut 1.1

     12 January 2014 at 2:36 pm

     Where would Key put his sponsors logos?

     1. The Emperor has no clothes
     2. If he had clothes they would need to be dozens of meters long, and there wouldn’t be room for the small donors.
     or
     3. He would need multiple thicknesses, look like the Michelin Man, overheat and die.
2. dv 2

   11 January 2014 at 6:59 pm

   Whats that phrase- if you have nothing hide you have nothing to fear.

   I suspect you will get agreement about how to tackle global climate change first.
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   11 January 2014 at 8:01 pm

   Donations below $1,000 can be anonymous but are still declared on a public register.

   This is wrong. Every donation going to the EDRNZ would have to have name/address on it so that all donations can be accumulated correctly and while the total donation to a political party remains below $1000 then the name isn’t given out. Once it passes $1000 then it would automatically flip over from anonymous to public.

   Any donations from a business or a trust for example, of any amount, would not be anonymous and must be declared on the register. (Trusts are and will continue to be a major thorn in the paw of NZ politics, until they are extracted)

   I’m still of the opinion that any legal entity that conglomerates multiple individuals into a single name (unions, businesses, trade associations, etc) should not be able to donate to political parties at all. Gets rid of that major thorn.

   One other thing I’d like to see is the requirement that all money and transactions that a party have be available to its entire membership at all times. This transparency would help prevent corrupt practices within a party.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     11 January 2014 at 8:20 pm

     I’m still of the opinion that any legal entity that conglomerates multiple individuals into a single name (unions, businesses, trade associations, etc) should not be able to donate to political parties at all. Gets rid of that major thorn.

     I disagree. It’s quite conceivable that a company would want to donate to a particular party, but none of the high-ranking officers of that company personally would want to donate to that party.
     • felix 3.1.1

       11 January 2014 at 8:34 pm

       Can you give a hypothetical example of how this might work? Having trouble seeing that one.
       • Lanthanide 3.1.1.1

         11 January 2014 at 10:26 pm

         In practice it probably doesn’t happen (with *all* of the company’s upper officers), but it’s not difficult to imagine Michael Cullen being loathe to donate to the National Party even if that were the best thing for NZ Post to do (obviously they’re an SOE so it’s different, but just an example).

         Another case could be a company that serves the lower classes in some capacity and therefore should be leftwing in it’s views, but is staffed by right-wingers.

         Potential possible examples: private prisons and private schools, probably would want to donate to National but could be staffed by left-wingers.
         • karol 3.1.1.1.1

           12 January 2014 at 7:32 am

           But the stafff may not make the decision – other individuals might – it’s still individuals making the decision.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2

       11 January 2014 at 8:54 pm

       It’s quite conceivable that a company would want to donate to a particular party

       Actually, it’s not as the company isn’t a living, thinking being. In what you describe it’s the individuals within the company that want to donate but want to use the company to hide that donation.
       • Lanthanide 3.1.2.1

         11 January 2014 at 10:27 pm

         It’s quite possible for companies to have positions on things that are different and distinct from the individuals that are employed by that company.

         In fact it’s often made clear when individuals are speaking on their own terms and not as a representative of their companies, and vice versa.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1

           11 January 2014 at 11:37 pm

           Companies have the position as decided by the collective of the boardroom. Now, some idiots may dress it up as the position of the company as if it was a living being but that is nothing but sophistry. The reality is that it’s the position of a limited number of individuals that work at the company.
           • Lanthanide 3.1.2.1.1.1

             12 January 2014 at 8:05 am

             So if a company like The Warehouse has a position on paying living wages to it’s employees (which they do), and the company at multiple levels carriers out this position in the way they treat staff and hire staff, according to you that company is behaving in exactly the same way as Pak ‘n’ Sav who only pay their employees minimum wage?
             • karol …

               12 January 2014 at 8:12 am

               Lanth – the company doesn’t make decisions. The comany is not a thinking, sentient human being. The company doesn’t behave at all. It’s not human. What part of that don’t you get?

               Some people in the company, at some level, would make the decision to contribute some of the company’s money to a political party.

               I don’t see what the different decisions made by Pak n Sav boards and that of Warehouse has to do with it.
               • Lanthanide …

                 12 January 2014 at 8:14 am

                 The point I’m making is that if you say companies, which are collections of people, cannot have positions on things, then you’re effectively saying that no collection of people can have positions on things. It really is quite obvious that different entities can have policies that have been decided on by some segment of their population, and those policies are then enacted throughout the entity on as many levels as necessary.

                 For example, turns out New Zealand actually doesn’t have an anti-nuclear position, because New Zealand isn’t a living breathing entity, it’s just a whole bunch of individuals. Some the individuals have an anti-nuclear policy and some of them act on said policy, but most members of the country don’t do anything about it at all.
                 • karol …

                   12 January 2014 at 8:28 am

                   It depends on who in the company makes a decision on contributing to a party’s funding. It most likely doesn’t include the rank and file staff. It’s probably the majority decision of the Board.

                   It’s not the same as the majority views of members of the public.

                   PS: Lanth, I’m not sure what it is you are disputing about DtB’s original comment.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     12 January 2014 at 8:47 am

                     I disputed DtB’s original comment by saying it’s quite possible that a company would hold different policies or positions than it’s higher officers, so prohibiting a company from donating and saying the individuals should do it instead won’t necessarily result in the same donations being made.

                     DtB followed that up by saying companies aren’t living breathing entities and therefore can’t have policies or positions, which logically means no collection of people could ever have policies or positions, which is patently absurd.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     12 January 2014 at 10:12 am

                     I suggest you re-read what I wrote because you obviously misunderstood it. Either that or you’re purposefully misrepresenting what I said.
4. Lanthanide 4

   11 January 2014 at 8:19 pm

   0.01% admin fee won’t begin to cover the costs of administering this fund, unless you’re also suggesting that all government-funding for political parties (eg, their TV ad spend etc) goes through this scheme also.

   0.1% is probably the bare minimum you could get away with, and in practice it’d probably be more like 0.5%.
5. jaymam 5

   11 January 2014 at 8:28 pm

   Apart from small donations from individuals of up to say $20 to a party, I think donations should be banned. Parties should be funded by government before an election on the basis of several dollars per vote that they get in the NEXT election. So the parties will have to guess how many votes they get. If they get fewer votes than they estimated, they will get less funding in the following election. A number of other countries do this already.

   Brad Pederson of Democracy Watch in Australia said:

   “Financial donations to political parties and candidates are one of the most corrupting forces in our political system. This is the dark underbelly of our political system. These donations are a serious threat to our democracy. The policy outcomes of all our governments risk being improperly influenced by huge corporations, powerful trade unions and wealthy individuals. Some donors even secure their influence by making equally enormous donations to both parties.

   “Every year the major parties collect what amounts to many millions of dollars, much of it through dubious means. Creative accounting and shady ‘front organizations’ are used to allow rich and powerful donors to mask their identity. The current legislative framework is wholly inadequate, riddled with loopholes and invites corruption. The time has come to seriously confront this cancer in our political system.

   “Nobody should believe this money is donated because of any altruistic enthusiasm for democracy. Even if there is no direct undertaking on behalf of the beneficiaries, clearly it’s about buying influence. These donations are predominantly just bribes – to think otherwise is naive. It must be exposed for what it is. The control of parliament by political parties riddled with donor cash should not be seen as anything less than the breakdown of fundamental aspects of our democracy. It is no secret that the major parties are being strangled by these donations. They need to be saved from themselves.

   “This issue is too important to be left to the political parties to solve. They have always resisted reforms that threaten their privilege. The major parties created the campaign finance laws and they are its beneficiaries. It is a blatant conflict of interest. Nothing will change unless the public demands it.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.1

     11 January 2014 at 9:01 pm

     +1

     That would, IMO, be the next step. Full government funding of political parties but not on the votes that they get as that would tend to entrench the present main parties but on the members that they have. Probably want to have a minimum funding level as well so that small parties still have enough to get their message out.

     Which brings up the idea of a registry of party members.
   • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.2

     12 January 2014 at 7:59 am

     I agree, but with one minor alteration.

     Private funding of any amount should be welcomed, but it simply goes into the general pool. No one party can benefit from it.
6. philj 6

   11 January 2014 at 9:39 pm

   Funding parties from Government coffers would not be welcomed by the beneficiaries of the dodgy present system. The corporates will queue up to get their say, as per usual. Nothing here, eh? Fletchers, Fonterra, Downers, SKY, Trucking Lobby
   • Draco T Bastard 6.1

     11 January 2014 at 10:00 pm

     It would certainly be hard to persuade people that it’s the best idea and removes the corruption that is possible within the present system.
     • One Anonymous Knucklehead 6.1.1

       12 January 2014 at 8:00 am

       I don’t think it will be hard to persuade people. Politicians and their clients, not so much.
       • David H 6.1.1.1

         12 January 2014 at 9:35 am

         Yeah it’s not the general population that you have to convince it’s the Megalomaniac, Narcissistic, Self entitled, Thieves, that are supposed to govern for all, and not just a select few. And the sooner that the current bunch are gone the better for NZ and it’s population of workers, and battlers, that have been robbed, and insulted, by those who are supposed to help them, over the last 6 years!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS