I am interested that you see regulation as necessarily analogous with undemocratic. Particularly as the current scheme, basically unregulated, because authorities and parties turn a blind eye to transgressions, actual or by the intent of the current legislation.

For my part, approximately 20 individuals wielding disproportionate power over voters, manipulation of them, and decit to them is not at all democratic, yet, it is unregulated.

I agree there is a balance to be struck and the current legislation is not quite it, in my opinion. However it’s a start. A debate certain quarters in this country have fought hard to avoid, including some in the Labour Party. It is no surprise to me that some of the same backers of the massive anti-MMP campaign are behind the current Herald-backed anti reform legislation. This small groupp elieve only they know the answer to whatever question they think needs answering, they want to see a previous “Job finished” ( Douglas and Richardsons work) and they think the “people” are too stupid to see that. Mind you, their behind the scenes manipulation, PR and deceit (yes Don Brash, John Key, McCully, English and others all lied, not fudged, not spun, not ommitted but LIED and thus perpetrated a fraud on NZ about what they knew, had done, and intended to do) and the success of it suggests they might be right that we are all stupid, because we believed their lies.

For example, if one were in government and really really really keen on staying in power for power’s sake and had no principles whatsoever other than staying in power, one would constantly go through list of who was donating even a mere $50 to opposition parties and make sure that no one on that opposition supporter list

* received any contracts with government agencies as consultants or contractors, e.g. for IT, health, education, social welfare, road & transport contracts

* were appointed to or promoted into important civil service positions

* were provided (educational) scholarships for their children or grandchildren

etc

First, there is no real link between the organisation of the 1970’s and this one. Nor are the circumstances in anyway analogist. Indeed this organisation supports a wholesale intrusion of the State into the democratic system under the guise of “transparency.” The first organisation supported shifting the balance of power between the State and the Individual towards the individual. Not this one.

Second, there are no “principles” annunciated here only a jumble of policy propositions. The only coherent principle is advocacy for a further regulation of New Zealand’s political system without identify the mischief one is trying to get at. A more accurate name for your organisation should be “Coalition for Highly Regulated Democracy.”

There is no recognition that any regulatory regime that makes it less likely for individuals to voluntarily contribute to the democratic system is actually an attack on the fundamental rights of Citizen’s including the right of free speech. Your trite statement in relation of non candidate/political party free speech that “[t]his is a difficult area to develop effective laws; we will be developing more detailed policy” is remarkable it certainly shouldn’t pass muster in a law school or pol studies essay. Why not simply be honest: your organisation supports attacking the freedom of speech of non candidates non political parties – a fundamental freedom which is proposed to be reduced to bureaucratically State “pre approved” and “authorised” speech.

Where is the evidence that any political party has knowledge of the anonymous donors or indeed has been swayed by these in terms of specific policies. Where is any recognition of any countervailing interest: in a small and intimate society an anonymous donation regime is essential to guard against the risk of retribution. But let us examine how far COG is prepared to go to ensure no advantage or disadvantage flows to political donors as a result of their donation should there be total public disclosure.

Will COG support the lifting of Parliamentary Privilege (and therefore the application of our default defamation laws) for statements made in Parliament alleging wrongful influence by political donors as donors in our political system?

Will COG support the criminalisation (like the penalties you propose for corrupt practices) of any behaviour by the Executive (or Crown agencies) that results in advantage or disadvantage following to donors as a result of their donor status?

Will COG support explicit statutory recognition that any consideration of a donor’s status as donor in the awarding of any contract or exercise of any public power is grounds for judicial review in the High Court.

Let us see whether your organisation will propose the necessary protection that should accompany full disclosure of donor status.