Working it through

After the last post, explaining how political parties are banned from publishing issue advertisements in election year (it surprised me when I saw it too), I thought I’d draw a few things together, to show you how poorly drafted this bill seems to be. A concrete example of how the bill, if followed, would work in practice.

Suppressing Criticism?

Much of the Parliamentary opposition (mostly from National) to the Electoral Finance Bill has focussed on the prospect that it will gag them (and others) from opposing the Government in election year. The posturing has at times, seemed a little over-the-top. Yes, I thought, the extended election period does mean money you spend opposing the Government at the start of the year will count toward your cap (or third parties’ caps), but that same applies to unions supporting the Government and to Labour themselves.

And I’ve already explained how I think the concern that National (or any other political party) has that the Government may be able to spend millions promoting, for example, budget initiatives without that counting towards Labour’s spending cap, but that every dollar spent to oppose those initiatives means a dollar less that can be spent – Government advertising may come within third-party spending caps.

The law doesn’t mean that money spent by the Green Party in February of an election year opposing that Trans-Tasman Therapeutics Agency counts towards its cap. Or that a campaign next year against council rates increases by National is covered in their election year spend. That’s what National is fear-mongering about.

They’re wrong.

But I was more wrong.

It is painfully, laughably so much worse than that.

The Electoral Finance Bill forbids political parties from publishing issue ads in election year.

Overboard

So you’re an ordinary New Zealander who feels strongly about a political issue. Maybe you think that New Zealand should remain GE-Free, or are opposed to the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. The election hasn’t been called yet, but it’s election year. How would this Election Finance Bill affect you?

Well if you wanted to spend more than $5000, you’d have to register with the Chief Electoral Officer, appoint a financial agent, and perhaps an auditor and then file expense returns and donation returns after the election. But you’re not that fancy. Or that rich. You couldn’t afford to spend that much even if you wanted to; maybe you’re a stay-at-home parent who’s scared of being criminalised if section 59 is repealed; you’re a student worried about genetic engineering.

You want to go to a protest. Campaign by sticking up posters and raising awareness. Make some clever mash-up and post it on YouTube. Let’s see how the law treats you…

What’s Covered?

The last post looked at the sort of campaigns that would be covered by $5000 or $60,000 spending limits in election years:

Keep Section 59, Repeal Section 59, Campaign for Civil Unions, GE Free NZ, US out of Iraq (and most groups campaigning on most of these issues would be limited to $5000).

But it’s also important to look at what would be covered in their campaigns. As I noted earlier election advertising can be in:

“any form of words or graphics, or both”.

Now that’s broad enough to cover just about anything – posters, flyers, TV, newspapers, press releases, e-mails, even speech (‘though actual speech usually won’t cost money).

The Second

That last post was just the first.

Think about what else is caught – and just not by a $60,000 limit, but by a $5000 limit.

The Vote for the Environment Campaign which rated each party’s environmental policies jointly run by Greenpeace, Eco, and Forest and Bird would be limited to $5000.

If the Civil Union debate had occurred in election year, the Wellington-based Campaign for Civil Unions would have been limited to $5000 (the Auckland-based group endured the process to register as an incorporated society and would have been allowed to spend $60,000).

Newsflash – First Reading

The first reading of the Electoral Finance Bill is today.

It is the Government’s first order of business and should immediately follow question time, probably a little after 3pm.

And much worse than it seems…

COG supports opening up the sources of finance of third parties, and making sure everyone knows who’s behind election advertising, so people can make informed decisions about what’s accurate, what’s not and how much attention we should pay to any view. We want reasonable limits on third party advertising, because we think there should be a level playing field, and having the potential for individuals to spend more money than political parties doesn’t make sense. The figures are debatable – we think $60,000 is probably too low, and 10 or 11 months too long – but the idea is a reasonable one.

Some reform is needed, but what of the Government’s proposal?

It’s bad. And while I spent my last post on how it’s arguably not as bad as it looks, this one (and maybe a couple to come) will look at how it’s worse than than even those opposed to it have been saying.

Not as bad as it seems?

And with the bad press (much of it deserved) the Electoral Finance Bill has been getting I thought I’d start with some of the good (or at least it bit that might not be as bad as it seems).

Aspects of the new third-party spending regime have sparked substantial controversy – within political ‘blogs, sure, but also Colin Espiner, and within the wider political arena. Labour has been accused of “screwing the scrum” – of setting up a system where they can spend vast sums of Government money during election year extolling the virtues of Government policies like Working for Families or KiwiSaver, which third parties (and political parties) can’t oppose without having that spend count towards their election limits.

But is it as bad as this? It doesn’t look that way to me.

Why? Because, as the law is written, appear to apply third party spending limits to Government advertising!

It’s out

And we’ve got a lot to say about it. Primarily, what on Earth were you thinking? The bill does nothing about anonymous donations to political parties, and nothing about secret trusts – and this was one area on which National and Labour actually agreed!

More coverage and analysis

Note: this page is not being updated.  For a (reasonably) up to date page of media and other reporting of the Election Finance Bill debate – visit this page under our Media heading.

NZPA: Rough ride ahead for election spending bill
Kiwiblog: Help us pick a name
No Right Turn: Election funding: the rhetoric and the reality and On The Wire
Herald: Government retreat on banning large anonymous political donations sparks anger
DomPost/Press: National’s deputy leader says rules help out Labour
Greens: Election campaigns: corporates versus cake stalls
RadioNZ: Business groups says crackdown on election financing could undermine lobbying
Parliamentary Questions 24.7.07.  Question 7 and Question 8
KiwiFM Audio: Wallace & Russell Norman on Election Financing