Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And a win in Michigan for Romney...
-
Gareth - it depends what law he's trying to break.
It seems that at least one of the laws he intends to break is that which requires him to register before spending over $1000 publishing advertising related to an electorate.
Perhaps he should decide to put his name and business address on there - which would have been enough under that aspect of the old law.
-
Danyl, there was one mitigating feature about Labour's use of money and it is this...They declared it.
Except in 2002, and 1999, when they did the same thing, and on at least one of those occasions put words like "paid for by supporters of the Labour Party" on it.
The major problem was never the use of Parliamentary funds, and it had nothing to do with the Auditor-General. It was that there was a $2.38m spending limit which they ignored.
-
I'm not entirely sure. I suspect Hamilton, Madison and Jay thought it better to allow their ideas to speak, rather than them.
The battle of ideas - or something like that.
-
The Federalist Papers - which campaigned for the ratification of the US Constitution - were published anonymously.
When you referred to the not-so-distant past, I presumed that at the very least you weren't referring to a time before the invention of the printing press :-)
-
But it's not a new price. In the not-so-distant past, if you wanted to campaign, you have to literally stand up in front of the public and declare yourself.
I'm not sure the authors of the Federalist Papers would agree with you on that point.
-
The thing is Andrew Moore has consistantly tried to paint himself as a previously non-politically active youth.
Well I wasn't really taking issue with that statement - I wouldn't know one way or the other, but I'd thought I'd read somewhere of him explaining how he'd become politically active over section 59 (e.g. that he'd arranged Simon Barnett to speak at the Christchurch rally against the anti-smacking bill). Before that, you might know better than me...
-
Okay, I haven't read the whole thing, but is that really all that 'extremist'?
It might not incorporate my nuanced view on the issue, but it doesn't seem that "out there".
-
Hey! Those were supposed to be square brackets indicating I'd edited a quote...
-
Would that complicate things any?
Cameron explained his role in a comment on kiwiblog.
The site is Andy's, being hosted by Cameron.
I wouldn't think the Standard is spending $12 000. But yes, the point at issue whether they need announce who they are.
If they're a 'blog they don't have to tell us who they are. I think DPF's point was to ask why such an exemption shouldn't apply more generally to all non-commercial personal websites.
The question of whether the Standard is a 'blog (in terms of the definition in the EFA) is a question yet to be answered. They look like a 'blog, certainly, but I've heard it suggested that one or may be employees of the Labour Party.
If any of the authors of The Standard are being paid to write it, then I'd say their publication of their views is "commercial" and the 'blog exemption wouldn't apply.
I certainly don't have any real evidence that this is the case, and there's a good chance that it's idle and ill-informed gossip (or a smear), but it does tie with what I found out after the last election about keepleftnz - by speaking to someone from the PM's office who was involved - so I'm not prepared to completely discount the possibility.