Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
can someone explain whether the new act impose restrictions on members of the public (both financial and in terms of freedom of speech) that MPs and political parties aren't bound by?
There is an exemption in the EFA for publications published by MPs in their capacities as MPs, which means that these publications do not count towards MPs' (or political parties') spending limits.
So a publication funded by a non-MP saying what they're doing, and why they'd be a good MP will come within the $20,000 spending limit for candidates, but a similar publication from an MP (and funded from Parliamentary Services money) may fall within the exemption and not have to be included in the $20,000 spending cap.
Arguably, a pledge card (which can certainly be funded by Parliamentary Services) from a party in Parliament falls within the exemption (so isn't included in the $2.4m cap - effectively making the limit much higher for parties in Parliament), but a pledge card from a Party outside Parliament trying to get in cannot - so has to be included in that party's spending limit.
-
The leaders' fund. i.e. If an act by a third party is deemed to be electioneering, is it then also something that cannot be funded out of the leaders' fund? And vice versa.
A very vexed question.
Basically, the answer is no. A pledge card expounding on Labour's policy's for the next 3 years could be funded from the leader's fund.
A similar card from a third party - Labour will do this over the next three years - would be illegal. A card listing perhaps six bad things Labour would do over the next three years would be an election advertisement is published by a third party and would count toward the third party cap.
The vexing bit is whether the pledge card - funded from the Leaders' fund - counts toward Labour' spending cap. There's a fairly good argument that under the new law it won't.
Ah, Angus, so are you saying that the regulation of third parties is okay, as long as the caps are higher?
A lot of people were saying that - even David Farrar.
-
are the standards for judging what constitutes electioneering the same for parliamentary material and third party material?
electioneering for what purpose? Whether Parliamentary leader's fund money can be spent on it, or whether it has to be included in the spending cap?
-
The Libz should be careful - they can only publish pro-party or anti-party election advertisement. Parties aren't be permitted to campaign against candidates under the EFA.
-
I like to think we'll see a future election environment where all sorts of interest groups run huge campaigns stating their arguments - and political parties and their associates then run campaigns outlining their views on those issues. When their views line up with an issues-based campaign that you agreed with, you have a voting preference.
This may be a grey are too.
If National comes out with a policy to raise the threshold on the 19.5% tax rate to $50,000 and cut the top tax rate to 33%, and someone pays for newspaper ads that say: "New Zealand should raise the threshold on the 19.5% tax rate to $50,000 and cut the top tax rate to 33%" one week before the election, but without mentioning National, or voting or the election, is it an issue ad, or can it reasonably be regarded as encouraging someone to vote for National?
-
Obviously :-)
But given you went to the trouble of quoting a section of the Act rather than a clause in the Bill, I thought I'd have some fun.
And it hasn't appeared on legislation.govt.nz yet, because it's not yet a law. Not for a couple of days yet. I am aware that those forming a party have to have a list (or a candidate running somewhere) to qualify for the spending party-vote spending limit. It will also ban them from opposing individual candidates.
-
It's not "electioneering".
I/S - I think you missed this bit:
and encouraging people to vote for candidates who feel the same
With that, it is an election advertisement.
-
Boscawen et al have to do a bit more than start a political party to access the higher limit: they also need to run candidates and/or contest the party list. Not that that's a Bad Thing at all.
See s84(1) of the Electoral Finance Act.
I/S - that would be:
On the application of a claimant or candidate's financial agent, a District Court may make an order granting leave to a financial agent to pay-
(a) a claim for election expenses sent after the period specified in section 68(1); or
(b) a claim not paid in the period specified in section 68(2); or
(c) a disputed claim in respect of which an action was not brought within the period specified in section 69(1)(b).I'm not sure how this helps you.
-
if it means people like you won't be able to phone-spam with your expensive astroturf campaigns, then maybe that's a good thing ...
So you think it does that?
:-)
-
David 'What does the P stand for' Farrar
Peter.