The countries that accept foreign donations to political parties

Written By: - Date published: 9:31 am, August 23rd, 2016 - 86 comments
Categories: accountability, International - Tags: , , ,

The countries that accept foreign donations to political parties are in red (source):

map-foreign-donations-red

86 comments on “The countries that accept foreign donations to political parties ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. adam 1
    23 August 2016 at 9:43 am

    Sorry about the poor video quality.

  2. Gosman 2
    23 August 2016 at 9:46 am

    In Africa it looks like the countries with the best democracies allow it.

    • Grant 2.1
      23 August 2016 at 10:55 am

      Yes Chad and the Central African Republic are certainly sterling examples of exemplary democracies alright. Pleased to see your political and historical analysis is holding to its usual standard. (low).

      Apart from the ones I’ve already mentioned, perhaps you’d like to give us a run-down on the attributes of Uganda, Burkina Faso and Mali?

      • Phil 2.1.1
        23 August 2016 at 12:30 pm

        Pleased to see your political and historical analysis is holding to its usual standard. (low).

        Transparency international still considers New Zealand and Australia two of the most transparent political systems in the world, with low levels of corruption. Additionally, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium and Holland are democracies held in relatively high regard. Spain and Italy, not so much (but they have other problems).

        Meanwhile, the foreign-political-donation free nations of Venezuela, Somalia, Egypt, Syria, Greece, the United States and so on, are doing a top-notch job.

        Bottom line is: I look at this chart and see zero useful correlation.

        • Grant 2.1.1.1
          23 August 2016 at 1:08 pm

          The chart may not be a useful tool, but Gosman certainly is.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2
          23 August 2016 at 6:09 pm

          Transparency international still considers New Zealand and Australia two of the most transparent political systems in the world, with low levels of corruption.

          No they don’t. They report that we have a perception that we’re the least corrupt country.

          This, as John Key and National have proven, is complete bollocks.

          • Philj 2.1.1.2.1
            23 August 2016 at 7:36 pm

            Nicky Hager explained to me that it was a measure of the perception of corruption. It is not a measure of corruption, but a measure of the PERCEPTION of corruption. Quite a difference.

            • The lost sheep 2.1.1.2.1.1
              23 August 2016 at 7:56 pm

              Did Nicky explain why Transparency International chooses to use perception as it’s measure PhilJ?

              Did he provide you with some Internationally recognised research that illustrated the difference between NZ’s Transparency International rating and, er, some other measure of corruption?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                24 August 2016 at 8:33 am

                Did Nicky explain why Transparency International chooses to use perception as it’s measure PhilJ?

                IMO, it’s because it hides the actual corruption.

                Did he provide you with some Internationally recognised research that illustrated the difference between NZ’s Transparency International rating and, er, some other measure of corruption?

                The only valid measure of corruption would be convictions/100,000. Unfortunately, NZ doesn’t have any laws against corruption. If we did McCully would be in jail for his bribe to Saudi Arabia.

        • maninthemiddle 2.1.1.3
          25 August 2016 at 11:00 am

          TI’s perception analysis is largely correct. NZ is virtually devoid of political corruption, and anyone who has or does do business overseas knows that.

          There are also other measures that show how strong NZ’s reputation is:

          http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm
          NZ 4th/150 as least corrupt.

          https://government.defenceindex.org/#close
          NZ is one of only 2 countries with a defence corruption index of Very Low.

          There’s more, but you get the drift. NZ is up there with the best when it comes to the lack of corruption.

    • Muttonbird 2.2
      23 August 2016 at 8:30 pm

      What about Venezuela? That’s the question on everyone’s lips.

    • Anno1701 2.3
      24 August 2016 at 4:00 pm

      “In Africa it looks like the countries with the best democracies allow it”

      heh…..

  3. save nz 3
    23 August 2016 at 9:52 am

    Shocking! Personally I don’t even think you should be allowed to donate past $5000 to a political party and donations from companies or trusts should be outlawed. It should be an even playing field.

    We would have a better world if we all have an equal vote. Now apparently USA (where we seem to be heading) it is all about how much money you have in campaign not about your policies or your integrity. Hence the choice of Trump vs Clinton, who the voters loathe the least. And Obama still trying to force through TPPA even though ‘apparently’ both Clinton and Trump and against and so is most of the US population.

    No wonder world leaders can’t be bothered doing anything about major threats, climate change, water and air pollution, food quality and so forth when they are more motivated and indebted to oil, arms, hollywood and GM companies to win their elections for them and push through policies for them.

    • gsays 3.1
      23 August 2016 at 10:02 am

      i agree save nz, and would add:

      a transparent lobbying register and
      publically funded election campaigns.

    • Chooky 3.2
      23 August 2016 at 10:33 am

      +100 save nz and gsays…a STOP should be put to foreign donations!

      …otherwise Elections are bought by foreign interests…antithetical to a Democracy

      …and tacit approval of corruption of politicians and political parties

    • Draco T Bastard 3.3
      23 August 2016 at 6:10 pm

      +1

  4. RedLogix 4
    23 August 2016 at 10:11 am

    Well even the Australians are concerned:

    Momentum is building to consider a ban on political donations from overseas, after an ABC investigation of Chinese-linked payments to the major parties.

    The ABC has revealed that between 2013 and 2015 Chinese-linked companies and individuals made more than $5.5 million in donations to both Labor and the Coalition.

    The donations include $850,000 given to the ALP by a businessman whose address is shared by a centre for retired Communist Party officials.

    Former treasurer Wayne Swan has warned foreign donations could be “skewing” political decision-making.

    “I certainly think we should be having a stronger debate about the role of political donations and how that potentially is leading to political decision-making being skewed in favour of foreign countries,” Mr Swan told the ABC.

    “I’m all in favour of that, and I’m all in favour of looking at tighter control in that area.”

    Chinese political donors

    An ABC investigation of political donations reveals Chinese businesses are by far the largest foreign-linked donors to both major parties. Search the data here.
    He has an ally in Independent South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, who wants to make overseas payments illegal.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-22/foreign-donations-could-skew-australias-democracy-politicans/7775060

  5. Gosman 5
    23 August 2016 at 10:53 am

    Given that map it 2oukd suggest there is little problem in the world with foreign donations to political parties.

    • nom 5.1
      23 August 2016 at 11:33 am

      Sure, if you happen to live in one of the green countries that doesn’t allow foreign donations. But did you notice that New Zealand was coloured in red?

      • Gosman 5.1.1
        23 August 2016 at 4:59 pm

        Ummm… why does that show a problem with countries receiving foreign donations for political parties? The most democratic country in Africa is Red. Are you stating that South Africa is being corrupted by foreign money and a place like Zimbabwe is a paragon of democratic virtue as a result?

        • joe90 5.1.1.1
          23 August 2016 at 5:22 pm

          South Africa is being corrupted by foreign money

          Of course not, everyone knows the ANC’s ties to China are cultural.
          /

          Like global south-to-south trade, south-to-south political funding is growing fast. China likes to help out African ruling parties, says Patrick Smith, editor of the Africa Confidential newsletter. Senior officials of the African National Congress (an entity ever harder to distinguish from the South African state) have long benefited from training at the Chinese Communist party’s leadership academy in Pudong. Now the ANC is creating its own Chinese-inspired academy at home in Venterskroon. Possibly coincidentally, the ANC’s head of research discovered in the course of a Chinese study tour last year that China has “opposition parties, whose role was to assist the government to govern” — a model for South Africa’s “rowdy, noisy and disagreeable opposition”, he added, in a newspaper opinion piece after the trip.

          http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:CoLlbrU39YQJ:www.ft.com/cms/s/2/40edc692-cf80-11e5-92a1-c5e23ef99c77.html+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

          http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2016-08-01-who-is-funding-our-political-parties-and-why-dont-we-know/#.V7vb-BJZAXk

        • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.1.2
          23 August 2016 at 5:26 pm

          The purpose of the map is very obviously to show the scarcity of countries which allow foreign donations to political parties – which you understand, or your first snarky comment wouldn’t make any sense. So why try to spin it otherwise? Why so invested in the right of foreign money to influence our democratic process?

          • Gosman 5.1.1.2.1
            23 August 2016 at 7:06 pm

            Do you have evidence that the countries that allow foreign donations to political parties are in any way less democratic or more corruptible than the ones that forbid it? Then show me the information which supports that. All that map does us show a number if countries forbid it. That doesn’t mean it is right or wrong. Heck I could do something similar a few years ago showing countries where gay marriage was allowed. It doesn’t mean that gay marriage is a bad thing if a majority of countries don’t support it. Ditto with foreign funding of political parties.

            • Stephanie Rodgers 5.1.1.2.1.1
              23 August 2016 at 8:57 pm

              Why are you demanding I defend an argument which no one has made? I suspect because you’re trying to derail the conversation away from the troubling fact that very few countries allow foreign donations to political parties.

              It’s a bit strange how worked up you are about a post which is literally one sentence and a picture, if, as you are asserting, it proves nothing.

              • Gosman …
                23 August 2016 at 11:54 pm

                Who cares if only a few countries allow foreign donations to political parties? That is not an effective argument against allowing it to occur. Indeed many of the countries that do allow them seem to be the most free and less corruptible than countries that ban it.

          • Macro 5.1.1.2.2
            23 August 2016 at 7:24 pm

            “So why try to spin it otherwise? Why so invested in the right of foreign money to influence our democratic process?”

            Because Stephanie the funding for Acts campaign slush fund would dry up overnight, and where would the greedy little buggers people be then?

  6. Huginn 6
    23 August 2016 at 11:32 am

    Well, speaking sort of which – has any light been cast on ACT’s championship of the legislation that enabled Ukrainian and Russian organised criminals to sell dodgy carbon credits here in NZ?

  7. Ovid 7
    23 August 2016 at 12:51 pm

    There is a limit of $1,500 a year for donations received from overseas persons. I don’t think our politicians are quite as cheap as that.

    • NZJester 7.1
      23 August 2016 at 9:12 pm

      There are limits also on the max amount of an anonymous political donation that can be made by an individual to a party in New Zealand, but National has found loopholes around that. They have exploited loopholes to have the largest pool of anonymous donation funds that is even larger than all the anonymous donations of all the other parties combined. Things like the National Parties Cabinet Club where people get to stay anonymous with their donation but get 1 to 1 access to the National Politicians is a classic example of this routing of loopholes in the anonymous donations rules. They are able to claim not to know who the donation is from even though all the people at the Cabinet Club had to pay to be there.

  8. Adrian 8
    23 August 2016 at 1:38 pm

    Except Gosman, it now appears all NZers and not just the Nats have to pay back the big donation by way of a dairy farm in a desert.
    Oh, and all the insurance company help in return for rooting ACC.

  9. Colonial Viper 9
    23 August 2016 at 1:46 pm

    Clinton has accepted massive donations from foreign donors. Of course, she’s not a country, so not listed on this post.

    • Phil 9.1
      23 August 2016 at 3:20 pm

      The Clinton Foundation isn’t a political party, either.

    • TheExtremist 9.2
      23 August 2016 at 5:04 pm

      Do you have to inject your Clinton hate into every single fucking post? I don’t like her either but for gods sake man, get a fucking grip!

    • Stephanie Rodgers 9.3
      23 August 2016 at 5:29 pm

      Either you’re misinformed about the Democratic Party’s processes – which strictly limit donations to American citizens or permanent residents (see https://my.democrats.org/page/contribute/contribute-from-abroad) – or you’re being deliberately vague in order to slag off Hilary Clinton in an unrelated post. I don’t see the point.

      • TheExtremist 9.3.1
        23 August 2016 at 5:48 pm

        I’m guessing the latter.

        Also note that CV, the massive Trump pimp he is, fails to mention that Trump solicited an illegal hack by a foreign power of a political rival. But Clinton *falsely* receiving foreign funding is the real problem, apparently.

        • Colonial Viper 9.3.1.1
          23 August 2016 at 7:33 pm

          Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that it is not possible to conclude who hacked the DNC systems, and further said that pundits should stop “hyperventilating” about Russian hackers.

          How is it you know so much different?

          • joe90 9.3.1.1.1
            23 August 2016 at 7:45 pm

            Clapper said I don’t think we’re quite ready yet to make a call on attribution and was adding a little snark when he said no one should be “hyperventilating” about the hack.

            http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-hack-russia-226384

          • te reo putake 9.3.1.1.2
            23 August 2016 at 7:57 pm

            He didn’t actually say that, CV. He was not country specific in his comment, saying it was too early to attribute guilt. What he actually said was that the hyperventilation about the breach was odd because nobody should be surprised at hacking any more. However, he did note that it was probably one of the “usual suspects”, so he wasn’t entirely letting the mafia state off the hook.

            • Colonial Viper 9.3.1.1.2.1
              23 August 2016 at 8:17 pm

              Bill Binnie former technical director at the NSA has also suggested that US intelligence insiders have a serious grudge against Clinton for her cavalier handling of top secret emails and acted against her.

          • TheExtremist 9.3.1.1.3
            23 August 2016 at 8:26 pm

            Because Trump said so, you idiot. He invited Russia to hack Clintons emails. It was a major story covered by all news outlets which Trump later claimed was a “sarcastic” joke.

            Do try to keep up

            • Colonial Viper 9.3.1.1.3.1
              23 August 2016 at 8:45 pm

              Not sure what you are on about. Clinton invited the world to hack her emails five years ago when she was Sec State, and using an unsecured, unapproved server in her home basement to do official work from.

              PS do you really believe that the Kremlin jumps into action whenever Trump gives them commands on prime time TV? Is Trump in actual fact a senior general of the Russian Intelligence services?

              PPS Clinton has received millions in donations for helping Russian businessmen buy American uranium mines. Actually true. Google Uranium One deal.

              • TheExtremist …
                23 August 2016 at 9:03 pm

                Trump speech – you know the one where he asked a foreign power if they could dig up more dirt on Clinton by way of hacking.

                It was news over every channel (except for maybe RT which seems to be your primary source of “news”).

                Don’t play dumb

                • Colonial Viper …
                  23 August 2016 at 9:13 pm

                  why do you believe the Kremlin takes orders from Trump? Is Trump a secret Russian general?

                  • TheExtremist …
                    23 August 2016 at 9:31 pm

                    No, I believe Trump is completely unfit to be president because he advocated what amounts to treason, is a racist, mysoginistic bigot who supports extreme pro-life positions, lies with every breath an appears to be completely unhinged while proposing massive tax breaks to those that need it least. And while you moan, incorrectly, about Clinton receiving foreign money Trump tacitly supports foreign powers hacking his rivals.

                    Seemingly your choice for candidate. Well done you.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      23 August 2016 at 10:28 pm

                      Your wild and uneducated claims are a bit sad.

                      BTW here is a short list of the foreign money that Clinton has received which I have put up before (from Zero Hedge):

                      -THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS TIED TO SAUDI ARABIA WHILE CLINTON SERVED AS SECRETARY OF STATE
                      -AN EMBATTLED BUSINESSMAN WITH “TIES TO BAHRAIN’S STATE-OWNED ALUMINUM COMPANY” GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
                      -A VENEZUELAN MEDIA MOGUL WHO WAS ACTIVE IN VENEZUELAN POLITICS DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DURING CLINTON’S TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
                      -GERMAN INVESTOR WHO HAS LOBBIED CHANCELLOR MERKEL’S ADMINISTRATION GAVE BETWEEN $1 MILLION AND $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, SOME OF WHICH WAS DURING MRS. CLINTON’S TENURE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
                      -THE CEO OF AN AMSTERDAM BASED ENERGY COMPANY DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND LATER ANNOUNCED AT THE 2009 CGI MEETING A $5 BILLION PROJECT TO DEVELOP ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY POWER GENERATION IN INDIA AND CHINA
                      -INDIAN POLITICIAN AMAR SINGH, WHO HAD DONATED AT LEAST $1 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION, MET WITH HILLARY CLINTON IN SEPTEMBER 2008 TO DISCUSS AN INDIA-U.S. CIVIL NUCLEAR AGREEMENT
                      -THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED ADDITIONAL DONATIONS FROM INDIAN BUSINESS INTERESTS PRIOR TO HER BECOMING SECRETARY OF STATE
                      -BILLIONAIRE STEEL EXECUTIVE AND MEMBER OF THE FOREIGN INVESTMENT COUNCIL IN KAZAKHSTAN LAKSHMI MITTAL GAVE $1 MILLION TO $5 MILLION TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION BEFORE CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE
                      -SOON AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE CLINTON
                      -FOUNDATION “RECEIVED A LARGE DONATION FROM A CONGLOMERATE RUN BY A
                      -MEMBER OF CHINA’S NATIONAL PEOPLE’S CONGRESS”
                      
AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DEFENDED ITS PARTNERSHIPS WITH BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC CORPORATE INTERESTS
                      -POWERFUL AND CONTROVERSIAL CORPORATE INTERESTS BASED IN THE U.S. ALSO DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
                      -AMONG THE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONORS REVEALED IN 2009 WERE SEVERAL FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS WHO HAD GIVEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
                      – WHEN HILLARY CLINTON BECAME SECRETARY OF STATE IN 2009, BILL CLINTON AGREED TO STOP ACCEPTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION FROM MOST FOREIGN COUNTRIES
                      -IN THE PAST, SOME OBSERVERS HAD LINKED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONATIONS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND SECRETARY CLINTON’S WORK AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
                      -THE CLINTON FOUNDATION CAME UNDER INTENSE SCRUTINY IN FEBRUARY 2015 WHEN IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE FOUNDATION HAD ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AFTER SECRETARY CLINTON LEFT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
                      -THE WALL STREET JOURNAL TIED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT DONORS TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S ENDOWMENT FUNDRAISING UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON
                      -CLINTON FOUNDATION ANNOUNCED THAT SHOULD HILLARY CLINTON DECIDE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT, THE FOUNDATION WOULD FOLLOW APPROPRIATE PROCEDURES FOR ACCEPTING DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN DONATIONS, JUST LIKE IT HAD HAD UNDER SECRETARY CLINTON

                      -REPORTS THAT STATE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS DID NOT EXHAUSTIVELY VET BILL CLINTON’S PAID SPEECHES DURING SECRETARY CLINTON’S TENURE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE CLINTON FOUNDATION DONATIONS MAY HAVE PLAYED IN ORGANIZING THOSE SPEECHES
                      -SOME CONSERVATIVES USED THE FOREIGN DONATIONS CONTROVERSY TO IMPLY THAT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION IS NOT A CHARITY AND QUESTION THE FOUNDATION’S CHARITABLE WORK
                      -THE CLINTON FOUNDATION HAS ACCEPTED DONATIONS FROM INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF WHOM HAD TIES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, DURING HER TENURE AS SECRETARY OF STATE
                      -THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RECEIVED MONEY FROM A FOUNDATION FORMED BY FORMER UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER VICTOR PINCHUK
                      -WALL STREET JOURNAL COLUMNIST MARY O’GRADY CITED A CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO CLINTON DONORS FOR HAITI AID AS EVIDENCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE CLINTONS

                    • TheExtremist …
                      24 August 2016 at 6:20 am

                      Which claims are “wild and uneducated”?

              • NZJester …
                23 August 2016 at 9:23 pm

                Trump has very close ties to people in the Kremlin.
                His daughter Ivanka Trump took a Vacation recently this month with Wendi Deng who is reported to be Putin’s girlfriend. You can not get closer ties than that. Trump also owes a lot of money to people in Russia a lot of who are in Putin’s wider circle of friends and apparently at least one in Putin’s closest inner circle is owed money by Trump also.

    • joe90 9.4
      23 August 2016 at 5:49 pm

      Meanwhile, Trump solicits……

      • marty mars 9.4.1
        23 August 2016 at 6:10 pm

        the latest rumour I read is that trump has given up on the election and now trying to build a All Racist Supremacist Endorsed – White Internet Publicity Empire – good luck with that one donny, meanwhile his hand is out but not much money can fit in it for some reason.

        • Colonial Viper 9.4.1.2
          23 August 2016 at 7:38 pm

          ” the latest rumour I read is that trump has given up on the election”

          In the next two days Trump is holding massive campaign rallies in Florida, Texas and Mississipi.

          That doesn’t strike me as giving up.

          Where is Clinton holding her campaign rallies over the next two days (trick question, she has none)

          • marty mars 9.4.1.2.1
            23 August 2016 at 10:59 pm

            it the monertise moment perhaps – he just wants the money and to see ARSE-WIPE get off the ground.

          • Phil 9.4.1.2.2
            24 August 2016 at 1:31 pm

            In the next two days Trump is holding massive campaign rallies in Florida, Texas and Mississipi.

            That doesn’t strike me as giving up

            Two of those locations scream out “I don’t give a fuck about actually winning, I just want to bask in the adoration of another rabid crowd”.

            Is that “giving up”? No, but it’s not far away from it.

        • Nic the NZer 9.4.1.3
          23 August 2016 at 8:36 pm

          The official rumour (as reported by CNN) has him appealing to african americans with the phrase ‘what the hell do you have to lose by backing me’.

          • Colonial Viper 9.4.1.3.1
            23 August 2016 at 8:54 pm

            Listen to Trump make his inner city, economic, jobs and law and order case to Blacks and Hispanics today at a massive rally in Akron, Ohio.

            https://youtu.be/RWKz9zYNUzM?t=3306

            • joe90 9.4.1.3.1.1
              23 August 2016 at 9:33 pm

              More hate.

              Trump in Akron adds some stress to middle name of "Barack Hussein Obama."— Alex Seitz-Wald (@aseitzwald) August 22, 2016

              Trump is asking his supporters to become vigilante vote-fraud monitors in minority communities. This is one of his most dangerous proposals.— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) August 22, 2016

              Both sickening and fascinating to watch: Trump is trying to rebrand dehumanization verging on hate speech as "outreach."— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) August 23, 2016

            • marty mars 9.4.1.3.1.2
              23 August 2016 at 11:01 pm

              yeah trump is really down with the brothers and sisters – what a fucken joke – all for sycophantic stupid pale supporters though – funny that.

    • marty mars 9.5
      23 August 2016 at 5:59 pm

      “Clinton has accepted massive donations from foreign donors. Of course, she’s not a country, so not listed on this post.”

      lol – thanks for that one cv

    • Chooky 9.6
      23 August 2016 at 7:11 pm

      + 100 good point CV…there is more than one way to corrupt a country or a political party …go to the politicians directly and funnel money through trusts , foundations etc

      https://www.rt.com/usa/356782-clinton-emails-bahrain-prince/

      https://www.rt.com/usa/355447-clinton-emails-state-department-foundation/

      • TheExtremist 9.6.1
        23 August 2016 at 7:26 pm

        RT is as reliable as Fox. I find it totally mind boggling for anyone to actually link to it as a source for, well, anything.

        • Colonial Viper 9.6.1.1
          23 August 2016 at 8:32 pm

          Why are you shooting the messenger? RT is a news service reporting on the latest on Clinton’s lies about her criminal handling of official emails.

          If you really prefer, here is a US news source reporting the same thing:

          The Obama administration acknowledged Monday that the FBI found at least 14,900 more email messages former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government, and officials are facing intense pressure to release them ahead of November’s election.

          A federal judge ordered the State Department to speed up the process, and the Republican National Committee said the administration should strive to release an initial set of the secret emails within a month, or when the first states conduct early voting.

          The existence of the emails marks yet more trouble for Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, who insisted she turned over all of her work-related messages in December 2014.

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fbi-found-14000-new-hillary-clinton-emails/

          • TheExtremist 9.6.1.1.1
            23 August 2016 at 9:39 pm

            Because, like Fox, RT is a known propaganda channel. Citing RT on anything to do with the US election is like citing Creation.com on matters pertaining to biology.

            • Colonial Viper 9.6.1.1.1.1
              23 August 2016 at 11:09 pm

              Still shooting the messenger? How about what I quoted out of the Washington Times then, since you don’t like RT.

              What’s your comment on the Washington Times piece?

          • marty mars 9.6.1.1.2
            23 August 2016 at 11:04 pm

            I read the rt stuff the chook put up and it was rubbish conclusions based on tenuous connections to a dump of unrelated facts – apart from that it had its merits not.

            • Colonial Viper 9.6.1.1.2.1
              23 August 2016 at 11:11 pm

              Which were the rubbish conclusions?

              Clinton lied about handing over all her work emails. How is that a “rubbish conclusion”? It’s absolutely true.

          • joe90 9.6.1.1.3
            24 August 2016 at 1:44 am

            If you really prefer, here is a US news source reporting the same thing:

            the FBI found at least 14,900 more email messages former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government,

            Conveniently omitting the fact that these emails had long been deleted, by an admitted technophobe who like most folk probably thinks deleted means gone forever, and recovered forensically.

            “We found those additional emails in a variety of ways,” Comey explained in July. “Some had been deleted over the years, and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton … Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of email fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.”

            http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-found-15000-clinton-emails/story?id=41576112

  10. The Pink Postman 10
    23 August 2016 at 3:55 pm

    The Nat’s membership of the Pacific Democratic Union enables the Republican Party USA.to help Right Wing parties in this umbrella grouping. I have always suspected that the Dancing Cossack advert from
    Hanna Baba in Muldoon’s day was paid by the PDU .The amount of money spent by National every election make one suspicious of its source . The next Labour government should open the books on this as soon as possible.interesting that Key chaired this grouping last year .i wonder how many people knew this.

  11. alwyn 11
    23 August 2016 at 4:21 pm

    Why do you include a link, under “related” to a smear against Earl Hagaman by Andrew Little?
    The Hagamans live in New Zealand, as I am sure you are aware.
    Why didn’t you put a link to the enormous donation by Owen Glenn to the Labour Party some years ago? He wasn’t a resident at the time but lived in Monaco. He certainly did qualify as a non-resident. Hagaman doesn’t.

    [lprent: The links are automatically generated based on correlations with the heading, categories, tags, and text of the post. They are different between the desktop and the mobile versions because they use different toolkits. And they are different over time because they are calculated pretty close to the time when the post is displayed depending on database caching.

    Did you really think that we’d waste time doing a manual selection of 3 related posts whenever we write a post? You might as well complain about the colour of the sky or the essential perfidy of John Key. Whining about those isn’t going to change them either. ]

    • Stephanie Rodgers 11.1
      23 August 2016 at 5:35 pm

      The “Related” links at the bottom of each post are auto-generated by WordPress, not chosen deliberately by the author of the post. Presumably since both stories refer to political donations, the machine assumes they’re relevant to each other.

      The Standard wasn’t even a year old when the Owen Glenn donation issue broke in mid-2008, and apparently none of the authors of the day chose to blog about it.

    • Nic the NZer 11.2
      23 August 2016 at 8:32 pm

      Yes, as Alwyn points out (in a round about way) offshore donations is not just a way for foreigners to donate but residents and nationals can use it to donate as well. Clearly in some cases this may be to evade donation rules in some way. Maybe it might be easier to organise an ‘anonymous’ donation through offshore channels.

  12. Muttonbird 12
    23 August 2016 at 6:16 pm

    Poor alwyn. Not too bright.

    Perhaps he or she went to one of those online schools.

    • b waghorn 12.1
      23 August 2016 at 6:38 pm

      paranoia creeping into the right now the lefts gaining.

      • Muttonbird 12.1.1
        23 August 2016 at 6:52 pm

        Yes. Irrational and automatic distrust – exactly what former National government minister Dr. Wayne Mapp accused ‘many Standardnistas’ of just this morning.

    • alwyn 12.2
      23 August 2016 at 8:45 pm

      You should try some of the on-line courses.
      You could get the education you have obviously missed in your younger days.
      Have a look here
      https://www.edx.org/
      You probably won’t recognise these places but I can assure you that MIT is very good and Harvard isn’t too far behind.
      Try them out. They are free and the material is very good. You can go as slowly as you need too.

      • Muttonbird 12.2.1
        23 August 2016 at 8:49 pm

        *to*

        That just confirms the quality of your online education.

        • alwyn 12.2.1.1
          24 August 2016 at 12:26 am

          Very good. I wondered if you would notice. Unfortunately I didn’t see the mistake until the time to edit the comment had elapsed.
          Perhaps you aren’t quite as ignorant as you appear.
          I would recommend the MIT courses though. If you want to get an education it is very good. I look at them these days to find out things I didn’t have time for when I was younger. It was a great place to study when I was there in the late 60’s and it is better now. Probably harder to get into as a graduate student than it was in my day though.