Trevor Loudon's New Zeal blog has moved to

redirecting you there now

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Green Party Hypocrites Justify Support for Electoral Finance Bill

The Green Party is worried. Stung by recent low polling, they've figured out that its probably related to their support for Labour's hugely unpopular Electoral Finance Bill.

Here's some extracts from a mass email sent out in the name of their formerly?Trotskyist co-leader Russel Norman and their anarchist MP, Metiria Turei.

Some comment from me in bold.

Protecting free speech and fairer elections

Please forward this email to as many people as you can to get the truth out there.

Many of you will have seen media reports and even paid advertising about the Electoral Finance Bill. Given the controversy around this Bill, we thought it was important that we wrote to you directly to explain the Green position.

The Electoral Finance Bill deals with one of the most important issues in our democracy - controls on the financing of election campaigns to protect the integrity of the ballot from the inequality of the wallet.

The Greens have had many concerns about this Bill but we have chosen to work constructively with all parties. Our aim has been to improve the laws around campaign finance so that we
- have a fairer election system,
- ensure a more level playing field, and
- limit the corrupting influence of large secret donations on political parties.

The opponents of campaign finance reform

However, much of the publicity that has surrounded this Bill has been one-sided and, in fact, some has even been funded by wealthy donors who want the law to stay the same. They are trying to frighten New Zealanders by saying the Bill impacts on freedom of speech – this is not true.

A little dig at private individual John Boscawen, who has funded the anti EFB campaign largely out of his own pocket.

Some media organisations have also been running an active and misleading campaign against the Bill. Journalists have contacted us to tell us that they oppose the misleading editorial line of their papers, but it is very difficult for them to get their views across.

Paranoia runs deep.

So what does the Bill do (and what doesn't it do)?

* The Bill does not restrict freedom of speech – it just caps election campaign spending.
* Any person or group can purchase as much issue advertising as they want at any time.
* The Bill only places limits on how much election advertising political parties and others can purchase in an election year. That limit is $2.4m for political parties and $120,000 for any other group or individual.
* Any group or individual who purchases more than $12,000 in election ads must register with the Electoral Commission so there is transparency about who is involved in the election campaign.

All this clearly inhibits free speech. One point the Greens fail to address is the real reasons donors should be able to remain anonymous-political revenge.

We have anonymous voting, so that no voter need feel intimidated by a potentially vindictive victor.

Many businesses in mixed economy New Zealand rely on government contracts for at least part of their income. Some business people already feel too intimidated to overtly support anti government parties. This bill will make that worse, potentially reducing funding for pro-business parties-a point I'm sure that was not overlooked by the bill's leftist framers.

The spending caps exist to stop parties spending millions on campaigning and then needing to raise those millions in donations. Once parties rely on millions in donations they become heavily influenced by those who provide the money. The caps on political parties only work if there are caps on spending by other groups, otherwise the money goes into parallel campaigns.

Having to raise money from donors-large or small, makes parties more responsive to the public. It engenders some humility. The alternative is open or covert state funding of political parties. This makes parties even less connected to the public and even more arrogant than they are now.

Closing the loopholes

Those who are most strongly opposed to the Bill took advantage of two major loopholes in our electoral financing regime in 2005.

- The first loophole enabled an organisation to work with a political party to run an almost identical campaign - known as parallel campaigning. This meant that the spending of the organisation was not capped even though it was a planned party election campaign.

A clear dig at the Exclusive Brethren. Why should private individuals not be able to support anyone they like with their own tax paid cash?

Greenpeace has been supporting Green Party campaigns for years-using tax deductible donations, even though Greenpeace is a clearly political organisation and has openly advised against voting National in the past.

- The second loophole allowed for millions of dollars to be given to political parties without the public knowing who gave that money. Both the USA and Australian electoral systems have suffered from the corruption that arises from the secret funding of political parties.

All paranoid speculation stated as fact. The New Zealand left has enjoyed huge financial and "volunteer" labour contributions from unions, Greenpeace etc, over many years.

The Greens are proud to assist in the closing of those two loopholes. This work will protect our electoral system from the threats of corruption that other similar democracies face.

It's far from perfect

However, we still have some outstanding issues with the Bill and with the process for these electoral law reforms. We are still pursing the option of a citizens' assembly which would allow for a number of randomly selected citizens to consider the issues of electoral finance and to find the best system for New Zealand. This system has been used successfully in Canada and we believe that the people of New Zealand should be able to make these decisions.

We have not achieved the ban on anonymous donations over $1000 that is our policy. However we have severely restricted the anonymous donations that can be received by both a third party and a political party. This is a major change in the law and goes someway towards a system that is open about who is funding political campaigns.

Changes the Greens achieved in the Bill

In summary, the Greens have made the following amendments:

Amendments to protect freedom of speech

1. Alter the definition of election advertising to protect issues advertising. This means that individuals and groups will be free to campaign on the issues that are important to them, regardless of whether one or more parties is also campaigning on the same issue. The Greens come from a campaigning background and we were determined to protect the right of groups to continue to campaign. For example, Greenpeace can continue to campaign against whaling, even though it is a campaign the Green Party has a profile on.

Has Greenpeace, which has been extremely worried about this bill had a word in the Green Party's ear. No that couldn't possibly be. The Green Party is completely opposed to any covert influence on the electoral system.

2. Remove the requirement for a statutory declaration for spending less than the threshold. This means that people or groups don't have to sign a statutory declaration every time they spend money under the threshold for listing as a third party. It was an unnecessary burden that performed no useful function.

3. Lift the cap on election spending by non-party groups from $60,000 to $120,000. Many groups and individuals engage in election advertising during campaign year. This advertising encourages voters to support parties that adopt certain policy positions. The Bill as introduced limited this spending to $60,000. The Greens have supported amendments that increase this limit to $120,000, 5% of the $2.4m party limit and twice that originally proposed.

4. Lift the spending limit at which a group must list as a third party from $5000 to $12,000. This was important because many groups and people engage in election advertising through pamphlets, newsletters or community newspaper adverts. These ordinary election activities should not require a person or group to have to list as a third party where the spending is under $12,000.

5. Enable under 18 year olds and permanent residents to be able to list as a third party. We fought for the inclusion of this because it is a breach of the rights of a citizen to be prevented from engaging in election advertising activities simply because they are not old enough to vote. This change also means that groups will not be excluded from listing as a third party simply because one member is under 18 years old.

6. Protect donations to groups that are not for election purposes. This means that groups that register as third party participants in the election will not have to declare any donations that are not specifically for election purposes.
Groups are entitled to raise and collect money for their regular activities without interference. Only donations given specifically for electioneering will need to be disclosed.

Amendment to restrict anonymous donations

7. Severely restrict anonymous donations to political and third parties. The Greens insisted on an anonymous donations regime that will restrict Labour and National's ability to raise money through anonymous donations. Our policy is that all donations over $1000 should be identified as to the true source – they shouldn't be listed as anonymous nor should they be hidden behind secret trusts.

In negotiations over this bill we have made progress towards achieving our policy by introducing a system that will limit political parties to a total anonymous donations income, for donations over $1000, of 10% of their spending cap over the three year electoral cycle – this would cut Labour's anonymous donations income by at least half and National's secret trust income by about 90%. Labour and National don't like it but we make no apologies for this.

Labour will make up the shortfall by giving more money to the unions, (which will launder it back to Labour) and by milking the state tit. National will be forced to support state funding of political parties. Any parties, like ACT, that are vehemently opposed to state funding will be disadvantaged.

In addition the money must be passed via the Electoral Commission to distance the parties from the process and donors must identify themselves to the Electoral Commission and give an assurance that they are not telling the parties about the donation on the sly. There is a limit of $36,000 on how much any one donor can give to a political party via this mechanism.

Best wishes

Metiria and Russel

Metiria is the Green MP responsible for the Bill in the House; Russel is Spokesperson on Electoral Matters.

No doubt Greenpeace will be very happy about all their friends, the Green Party has done for them.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home