Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Rethinking the EFA

167 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

  • Kyle Matthews,

    What if it's two weeks after an election, and three years before the next?

    As far as I know, we don't restrict election-type campaigning outside of the election period.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    moral: B should have spent his money offshore.

    Ah yup. What's your point?

    moral: recycle advertisements

    I would presume that the electoral law would deal with pre-spending in some way. If it was as easy as saying "oh no, we spent 20 million last year, we're only putting all the advertising up now" then it wouldn't be a very good law.

    moral: Despite friendship, people won't jeopardize their lives to publicly support what they believe in.

    I fail to see how this is the fault of the electoral laws. If people are going to be vengeful because other people support electoral candidates, then your problem is with those people.

    As much fun as that sounds Kyle, the appeal is somehow tainted by already knowing that bingo, that person spent $12,000.

    OK. I miss your point here.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Point A is; replacing money onshore with scraps of paper is New Zealand currency lost.

    Point B is; you presume, just as I contrarily presume, neither of us are certain, but you're living in it.

    Point C is; the entire and complete role of democratic government is to tailor the governing of a country to the people and not vice versa.

    The tenuous Point C(ii) is, as weighted by the example mentioned on page 7 whereby voters are reactionarily voting against their spouses, hence their prime motivation for their votes are spouses, whose existance supersedes the influence of advertising. Relegating much of the election result to the status of a large scale domestic. A factor not contributed to by limits on advertising.

    Point D is, NZ enforces a system that favors established political parties, discriminating against startup parties on the basis that no matter how much money campaigners are willing to throw at them, they will not be eligible for more campaign advertising without more campaigners. they will not be able to get more campaigners without more advertising.

    it's a chicken and egg problem kyle,
    with a cork wedged firmly up the chicken's ass.

    Political ideology and vision is consigned to a second tier positioning behind initial popular appeal (despite the worthiness of that vision): A fair enough way to decide an election, Yet it in no way enhances the competitiveness of parties fighting that election.

    Lastly, $12,000 or $1,000 are figures that were pulled from the chicken's ass prior to the corking.

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Another thing I find illogical is; say you have a guy, raped 5 free range hens, spends $12,000 on advertising for the National Party, and sure, you know who he is, where he lives and how much he spent on advertising, and you vote National accordingly. You even tell people you voted National because of his advertisements.

    Not long after the election, he is found guilty and his name suppression is lifted, You found your decision to vote was directly influenced by a hen f$cker, you have egg on your face, because while you knew his name, address, political stance and how much he legally spent, you didn't know dash all else about the guy. Fortunately he wasn't your candidate, but he's as good as, at least in getting her elected.

    so yeah, arbitrary name suppression; conflict of interests.

    the canting demarcation of 'transparency'.

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Point A is; replacing money onshore with scraps of paper is New Zealand currency lost.

    I fail to see why electoral law should make people make good business decisions. If people spend their money badly in any commercial or private arrangement, that's their tough luck. We don't tell other people not to take their business offshore if that's where business is good, we shouldn't do it for people running for election.

    Point B is; you presume, just as I contrarily presume, neither of us are certain, but you're living in it.

    Or you could go find it here.

    Point C is; the entire and complete role of democratic government is to tailor the governing of a country to the people and not vice versa.

    And the people would like to have the ability to know who's spending money on elections. Our old electoral law had this, our new electoral law has it. Lots of other countries have it.

    The tenuous Point C(ii) is, as weighted by the example mentioned on page 7 whereby voters are reactionarily voting against their spouses, hence their prime motivation for their votes are spouses, whose existance supersedes the influence of advertising. Relegating much of the election result to the status of a large scale domestic. A factor not contributed to by limits on advertising.

    Having just been through an election, I don't think it was decided by domestic disputes. Tenuous would be a generous description for your argument.

    Point D is, NZ enforces a system that favors established political parties, discriminating against startup parties on the basis that no matter how much money campaigners are willing to throw at them, they will not be eligible for more campaign advertising without more campaigners. they will not be able to get more campaigners without more advertising.

    That's silly. If you take away spending limits, it's not going to be new parties that are going to have buckets more money to spend, it's existing parties. National, Act and Labour, all parties already in power and able to reward big donors with policy will rake it in. Adjusting the law would have the opposite effect to what you're desiring.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Another thing I find illogical is; say you have a guy, raped 5 free range hens, spends $12,000 on advertising for the National Party, and sure, you know who he is, where he lives and how much he spent on advertising, and you vote National accordingly. You even tell people you voted National because of his advertisements.

    Not long after the election, he is found guilty and his name suppression is lifted, You found your decision to vote was directly influenced by a hen f$cker, you have egg on your face, because while you knew his name, address, political stance and how much he legally spent, you didn't know dash all else about the guy. Fortunately he wasn't your candidate, but he's as good as, at least in getting her elected.

    I was going to respond.

    But this last post led me to conclude you're an idiot, so I'll give up on that. Take your beastiality argument elsewhere.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Sorry. Take it easy Kyle. my main question, which I asked further up, was and is

    And, if i (someone without barnyard smut) were to spend $100,000 on advertising arguing against the EFA, would it change your opinion Kyle?

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    ...and as far as I'm aware, the law applies to all parties and all campaigners. not just ACT, Labour National, limiting their advertising budgets means nothing. They already have high public profiles.

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    I'll go out on a limb here, Kyle, and state that I don't think you would vote against the EFA, no matter how much advertising I threw at the issue...

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The fact that one particular person's mind may not be changed by advertising, doesn't mean that advertising doesn't change minds.

    Shell could spend billions advertising, I still wouldn't buy petrol from Shell. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't affect other people.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    skirting around the question there Kyle. Fair enough.

    Re: Shell. If Shell's advertising budget was limited to the number of New Zealanders they employeed. then they would definitely have an advantage over Gull.

    That's silly. If you take away spending limits, it's not going to be new parties that are going to have buckets more money to spend, it's existing parties. National, Act and Labour, all parties already in power and able to reward big donors with policy will rake it in. Adjusting the law would have the opposite effect to what you're desiring.

    why isn't it going to be new parties who have lots of money to spend?
    I don't understand that logic. In all likelihood new parties are only going to have money. That's all they'll have. They won't have 2,000 campaigners at $12,000 a pop. 2,000 campaigners is enough of head start for these big parties without also capping the new party's campaigners spending.

    re: the portion of the EFA you linked to. It's all down to spending, by gifting the necessary resources to make things, it could be sidestepped.

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    re: the portion of the EFA you linked to. It's all down to spending, by gifting the necessary resources to make things, it could be sidestepped.

    You need to go read the bill or an explanation of it and come back.

    Gifts or donations are recorded at their actual value. If someone was to donate a bunch of advertising to a political party, that donation would have to fit under their cap.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Re: Shell. If Shell's advertising budget was limited to the number of New Zealanders they employeed. then they would definitely have an advantage over Gull.

    Electoral spending isn't limited by employees. It's a hard cap.

    Political parties are limited to 1 million plus $20K per electorate candidate.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    why isn't it going to be new parties who have lots of money to spend?

    Because unless they've got a consortium of rich donors, each of whom is going to donate vast amounts of money, they're not going to get up to the millions of dollars that National and Labour take in every year.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    Unless it's not clear Kyle. I'm far more interested in the rights of citizens to involve themselves in an election and to campaign on behalf of what they believe in unhindered, than the parties themselves. I think most of my posts hint at this.

    So with regards to your first post above, to clarify, I'm referring to someone who has previously been given a printer for Christmas, verses someone who is using a printing company, and the the vast differences in output the two are capable of for $12,000. You seem to be saying that our Christmas and birthday gifts, when used to produce electoral propaganda, will be classified as donations and the necessary paperwork should be done. correct me if I'm wrong here.

    To the second post. again, not referring to the parties themselves but to the individual supporters of the party(people willing to campaign on behalf of the political beliefs with their own private finances). Assuming a party receives no donations, for whatever reason, and has only one non-party member campaigning for that party, then the limit of the advertising campaign will be $12,000 dollars?
    Where a larger party, with many willing to campaign on its behalf will receive support to the tune of $12,000 times the number of campaigners. Is this not correct?

    To the third post, Fact 1 big parties have bucket loads to spend, plus the advantage of many supporters each of whom can spend up to $12,000 campaigning on their behalf. Fact 2 a start up party may or may not have bucket loads to spend, and will have less people willing to spend $12,000 to campaign on it's behalf.

    Taking into account the private campaigners for each party, Which party has the larger combined total advertising budget?

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I'm referring to someone who has previously been given a printer for Christmas, verses someone who is using a printing company, and the the vast differences in output the two are capable of for $12,000.

    The difference in output would be, the person who had a printer, bought $12,000 of ink and paper, would get far less leaflets, at a much worse quality than someone who went to a professional printer. Ink jet cartridges are the most expensive way to print.

    To the third post, Fact 1 big parties have bucket loads to spend, plus the advantage of many supporters each of whom can spend up to $12,000 campaigning on their behalf. Fact 2 a start up party may or may not have bucket loads to spend, and will have less people willing to spend $12,000 to campaign on it's behalf.

    That was my point. Removing limits won't aid new parties, because they don't have a financial support base. Existing large parties will be the ones to benefit.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov,

    ok, thanks for clarifying that Kyle and thank you for your time.

    your taxed dollar • Since Mar 2008 • 1691 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.