Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Angus - if I understand what you're getting at, then yes, it would be legal. Those might still have to be declared as donations by the recipients, depending on my analysis above, and if the trust was being used to funnel donations, then it might have to reveal the ultimate donors (it might be acting as a transmitter of the donations, rather than as the donor). If you want to get a little more specific in your scenario, I'm happy to analyse it.
-
could it be possible to set terms for a private trust to mimic the Parliamentary Service? A trust under obligation to finance electoral advertising attacking party X could free its sponsors from the $120,000 restriction of a 3rd party.
Not really needed. There's nothing to stop any person with enough money giving $120,000 donations to as many third parties as they like - each of which will be able to register and spend to the limit.
-
Also, I'm thinking that if Parliament was making the "donation" (by passing a law requiring the Parliamentary Service to do so) then it's not something thats legally reviewable.
I wouldn't be seeking to review what Parliament has done, but rather how the recipient party has treated it. The disclosure obligations in the EFA are placed on the parties (or their financial agents). When the party receives the money, or value, they should declare it within 10 working days if it's over $20,000. I'm not saying Parliament has done wrong, more that a party that failed to tell us where it got its money from might have if they fail to mention it publicly.
why wasn't this flagged up at the time by all those lawyer/MPs in Parliament...
I can't blame them for this one - if this was all there was I'd be lauding them for doing a bang-up job - you can't expect perfection in this business. It took me months to twig, and I've been following pretty closely.
-
P.S. I promise that not all future posts will be on the Electoral Finance Act.
-
Steve - we get to vote.
-
National deliberately breaks the law by overspending at an election, but no one investigates, time runs out, so never mind.
They did? How?
In addition, National spends the same money everyone else does on the same stuff, but does it a couple weeks earlier, and the law gets retrospectively reinterpreted to neatly make everyone but National's spending suddenly out of bounds in a way that requires a quick parliamentary fix. Even though everyone else spent the right amount, and National blatantly cheated.
They did? I'm reasonable confident they actually spent it on different things. You might recall that the ban in the Speaker's Directions is a ban on spending money provided by the Parliamentary Service on electioneering advertising. There wasn't and isn't so explicit a ban on spending the money on electioneering staff, or polling, which I understand is the general assumption of where National spent its parliamentary funds. If they'd spent the money on early advertising we'd have known - the Parliamentary Service wouldn't have paid the bill for any advertising which didn't bear the Parliamentary Crest, and someone - anyone - would have found it by now.
-
I know you're trying hard to make it understandable for humans Graeme, but my eyes started to glaze over there.
I was actually in a bit of a hurry today.
-
Steve - that is the only way the law will work (so I think it will fly) but there is an argument there - but like I say, a dangerous one.
I can make a "Vote Labour" sign (I won't be spending $12,000+ so I'm entitled without registering). I will need to obtain the authorisation (i.e. permission) of Mike Smith but while Labour must account for the cost, I am the promoter and it is my name and address that need to be on it. Even though the Labour financial agent has authorised it, in that circumstance he is not the promoter. Bill English is arguing that this situation is analogous.
Mike Graham - I mean Mike Smith (the Labour Party Secretary and its financial agent). Mike Williams is the Labour Party President. They only get confused by people who haven't met them :-)
-
Quite right Fletcher, but I don't owe you $20.
:-)
-
Rich - it's not.
Election spending is the cost of advertising. This doesn't count.