Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Parliamentary Services are funding parties information campaigns in compliance with a statutory duty they've had based on them. That isn't voluntary, so it isn't a donation.
The TV advertising is just the same - it isn't a "donation" by the Electoral Commission.
Parliamentary Services is statutorily obligated to fund the parliamentary wings of parliamentary parties. This was a publication initiated by Mike Smith, who is nothing to do with the Labour parliamentary party (and if it wasn't initiated by Mike Smith, then someone may have put a false promoter statement on it).
There is certainly a reasonable argument to be made that in choosing to direct Parliamentary Service to spend money effectively belonging to the Labour parliamentary party on the Labour Party, it was a donation of the Labour parliamentary party to the Labour Party (and not a donation from Parliamentary Services). However at present Mike Smith and the Labour Party have $25,000+ of leaflets they did not pay for and were not entitled to have. Someone gave them to them without being legally obliged to - I'm at least presently of the view that that constitutes a donation from someone.
[p.s. I realise my use of the word entitled can be ambiguous: I am saying that the Labour Party couldn't have insisted upon being given the leaflets; I am not saying it has them illegally.]
-
The idea was that it would be brilliant and efficient. The idea was stupid.
Sub-editors are often a print publication's institutional memory. They know how to spell the unusual names...
I had this happen just today. An article quoting me in yesterday's Herald had my name spelt correctly. An article in today's referring to the fact I'd spoken to the Herald for yesterday's paper, didn't. Subbing by someone who actually read the Herald might have picked it up.
-
I did already have a "may" in there, but yes.
It is not clear cut, and there has been no decision (or even discussion as far as I am aware) by the Electoral Commission or a Court, but I know that if I was paying for Labour Party leaflets that would be a donation, and I am presently struggling to a find a substantive distinction between me doing it and the Parliamentary Service doing it.
-
Surely there is a law against govt depts spending money on political donations?
The law would generally be the budget. It sets out what government money may be spent on. Money cannot be spent by government departments except in accordance with parliamentary instructions (as contained in the budget). Parliament has allowed the Parliamentary Service to spend money in a way that may also mean that that spending constitutes a donation. I know of nothing in the Electoral Finance Act (or anything else) that would preclude it.
-
I thought they had. Doesn't the presence of the authorisation identify the leaflet as advertising? (Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong.)
No. Electoral Commission advice (and prudence) is that anything that might possibly be an election advertisement should have a promoter statement on it, just to be safe. The existence of a promoter statement is not a factual indicator that the material is an election advertisement (e.g. putting a promoter statement on a KFC ad wouldn't make it an election advertisement).
There is also a separate question (as DPF notes) that just because something might be (or is) an election advertisement, does not mean it's cost is an election expense. There is an exemption for material published by MPs in their capacities as MPs, and Michael Cullen has stated (I believe incorrectly) that everything that is properly paid for by Parliamentary Services is exempt from the spending limit.
-
__Running the HD box will cost an extra $10 a month, but that fee will be waived for customers to elect to keep their current box as an additional household decoder.__
What does that mean?
That the cost of having an HD box, plus a second non-HD box will be the same as having two non-HD boxes. I think.
-
with only one TV channel
Two. The 1975 election was in November. SPTV started in July.
-
Youngsters amongst us should remember that it was different rather black and white age
Colour. But I suppose a lot of people would still have had black and white sets.
-
I remember the Dancing Cossacks - they were cheaply done cartoonage meant to imply that Labour's new super plan would lead to communism
I believe the animation was outsourced to Hanna-Barbera.
-
I can spend millions on newspaper, radio and TV ads - no limits - explaining my views on any topic I care to explore. Provided I don't refer to any party or candidate or ask for anyone's vote, I don't even have to register as a 3rd-party. I need only identify myself and give my address.
Actually, if what you're doing doesn't have a spending limit (i.e. because it's not an election advertisement), then you don't have to identify yourself.
The EFA has effectively REMOVED any spending limits for someone with imagination who can see the possibilities in this.
No - there were no spending limits for individuals before, so nothing to remove.