The Electoral Finance Bill
OD seems remarkably quiet on this abomination. Have any of you attended the protest marches? Guess you have to get in while you can, such protests will be illegal if the Bill passes.
|
Protest marches? Fuck off - I'm glad this bill is going through.
|
I *was* interested in the protest marches, until I listened to the ad a bit closer - sponsored by Family First.......
lose/lose :( |
Does this mean that the political parties won't be allowed to advertise during "Californication"?
|
Can anyone actually explain to me how this impacts my free speech (which I didn't know we had - we don't have a constitution) ?
All I've heard is a lot of nebular waffling and hand waving. |
Quote:
|
I think it could effect you in such a way that if you really liked a certain party, and wanted to do them a favour by promoting their causes, you would be restricted by this bill. Namely how much you spend on promoting the party (>$120k).
But that's just via me skimming over all the BS the NZH has tacked on... so I'm sure someone can give a better breakdown. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
So what's with all the bleating from certain groups?
If everyone has to spend the same amount, and with all of this lately, nobody seems to like the government, then they (the Gov) can't dump more money into improving their image. So it looks like other parties are likely to gain greatly, and for less money down. So, uh, what? |
National is against the bill, so I'm for it. :p
Actually, I'm not a big fan of lobby groups. They're usually overly vocal groups that represent a lot of wealth, rather than the views of a lot of people. So I'm down with at least what I know about this bill. I am nervous that the liked of Draco T and f_t also support this bill, though. |
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00311.htm
Quote:
---------------------------------------- *Decided to move a copy of this post into this thread as it does relate specifically to this topic |
The Bill has one purpose and one purpose only: to keep Labour in power. It is a terribly-written piece of legislation -- like, totally broken -- that has been shoved through by Labour without any regard for the actual process of making law.
The EFB would prohibit any member of the public from publicly disagreeing with the government within a year of the election. It's that shitty. Most of Draco's posts to these forums would become illegal, and I personally would find myself open to prosecution for publishing them. When both the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society come out and say "WORST. LAW. EVER" what does that tell you? |
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4280913a6160.html
Quote:
|
Righties can play that game too.
Quote:
|
Article was linked for context. Point being that there were no cries of "WORST. LAW. EVER."
|
Quote:
Some of the amendments have actually made it WORSE. One of the changes? It has been changed so that now expressing a political opinion in email to one other person is against the law. Making a post here, or commenting on a blog, or uploading a video to Youtube that's satirical of the government, anonymously or under a pseudonym (ie - everyone here)? Illegal. |
Well that's bad. Where can this information be viewed?
|
Probably the best summaries I've seen so far have been from blogger and former Parliamentary staffer David Farrar on Kiwiblog.
His public submission on the Bill is here: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/09/my...ance_bill.html His quick summary of the revisions: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/19...ance_bill.html |
Quote:
Quote:
Long Live Fuhrer Clark |
I went on the march on Saturday and I'm pleased I did. This is probably the most draconian laws ever to be placed upon our democracy. I feel completely vindicated in the knowledge that Darco supports this piece of shit. David Farrar of Kiwiblog has done an excellent job of informing people on how bad this law is.
On your next protest march during election year please ensure your megaphone has your name and address placed on it or you will be breaking the law. |
Quote:
|
So Ab - do you disagree with the intention of the legislation or just it's current form?
I certainly think there is a need for legislation which regulates some of the activities which are involved in campaigning but the bill in it's current form is a dog's body (so to speak). I'd really hate the intention of the bill to be lost in the details - which is what it looks like is going to happen - but that comes back to it being terribly drafted. The intention of the bill is good - the actual bill itself is an absolute mess. Pixie |
Quote:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00269.htm Quote:
|
Quote:
Labour has been saying "Electoral Finance Bill EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN BIG BUSINESS" in much the same way that the Republicans have said "Iraq TERROR TERROR WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION". |
Quote:
Quote:
From here Code:
The following 〈publications〉 |
Quote:
Do you feel there is a need for regulation on election spending and contributions by 3rd parties or do you think it is fine as it stands? I'm not asking if you support this current form - just wether you feel there is a need for regulation in this area? Pixie |
I think that the Brash-Exclusive-Brethren and Clark-pledge-card fiascos are evidence that election-year spending requires some careful examination. I don't think it is only 3rd-party spending that requires regulation.
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Pixie |
Quote:
FYI, it says on the subject of electioneering: Quote:
Quote:
Have you lost your mind? |
Basically in short - we can't publicly discuss/debate an election..period.
Thats like wrong. |
Yep, it's obscene :)
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Yes, because now anything that "brings to the notice of the public in any other manner" is regulated. "The public" can be one person; "any other manner" is, well, anything. I could stand in my living room and shout "fuck this government sucks" and if someone walking past on the street outside hears me, I can be prosecuted.
|
1. It now includes speaking into a megaphone as a regulated election year activity. [Page 8 of Select Committee Report]
Church takes a hit 2. The definition of publishing an election advertisement is extended to include the catchall “bring to the notice of the public in any other manner” which will include speaking in public. [Clause 4(1) – para (i) of definition to publish] Church takes a hit 3. Anonymous political advocacy on much of the Internet is outlawed as uploading a political video to You Tube even a post into the nz.politics Usenet newsgroup advocating for or against a party will require a name and residential address. [Clause 53(1) – para (a) and para (g) of Clause 4(1) definition of publish] Church takes a hit 4. The regulated period of all of election year remains one of the world’s longest at 30% of an electoral cycle (in Canada it is 6 – 8 weeks only for third parties) [Clause 4(1) – definition of regulated period] Church takes a hit 5. Third parties are restricted from advocating in all of election year to vote for or against parties on particular issues such as the environment or taxes. For example Greenpeace could not spend more than $10,000 a month advocating a vote against parties who do not support Kyoto.[Clause 5(1) para a(ii)] Church takes a hit 6. Blogs are left in an unsure legal position as only non-commercial blogs are exempted. All commercial blogs and other websites are now regulated if they express an opinion for or against a party or candidate. [Clause 5(2) para (g)] Church takes a hit 7. Other online forms of advocacy such as e-mail are now regulated. [para (g) of Clause 4(1) definition of publish] Church takes a hit 8. No right of reply for people attacked in an election campaign. You can spend only $12,000 nationally defending yourself if you or your organization is attacked during a campaign as third party registrations close on writ day. [Clause 17 para (a)(i)] Church takes a hit 9. By closing third party registrations after before candidate nominations close, a local residents group would be restricted to spending $1,000 opposing a last minute candidate whose views they find repugnant. [Clause 17 para (a)(i)] Church takes a hit 10. Different rules for third parties and political parties remain – political parties have twice the disclosure limit of third parties. [Clause 47(1) para (ab)] Church takes a hit 11. Spending limits not adjusted for population growth and/or inflation so an effective decrease in real per capita spending of 31%, plus that now has to last all year not just last 90 days [Clause 4(1) – definition of regulated period] Church takes a hit 12. Instead of banning anonymous donations, a compromise deal has seen them remain legal up to a certain limit, obviously designed to favour the incumbent Government. [Clause 28C(1)] Church takes a hit 13. All forms of political advocacy which promote votes for or against a party (or candidate) have to have a name and residential address supplied – even for placards, e-mails, speaking at street corners, posters, chalk on pavement. [Clause 53(1) para (a)] Church takes a hit 14. Parliamentary expenditure which was clearly electioneering under the existing Electoral Act (such as pledge cards) is now exempt from the spending caps [Clause 80 – para (d)] Church takes a hit 15. New candidates face a near impossible job against incumbent MPs as they are limited to just $20,000 over 11 months, and MPs parliamentary spending is exempt. [Clause 4(1) – definition of regulated period] Church takes a hit 16. Political parties are banned from running ads which advocate against candidates on particular issues (such as vote against MPs who voted for the Electoral Finance Bill) [Clause 53(2) para (a)] Church takes a hit 17. Political parties remain immune from prosecution for breaches of the Electoral Act – only individuals such as financial agents can be fined. This provides an incentive for parties to place pressure on individuals to risk breaking the law as the party itself will face no penalty. Church takes a hit 18. Smaller parties remain disadvantaged with broadcasting rules, as they are banned from purchasing their own broadcasting. Church takes a hit 19. The public have no meaningful opportunity for input into the revised bill, with its masses of changes Church takes a hit Familyfirst: 'We believe it’s an invasion of our most basic human right – the right to have our views heard.' SWEEEEET |
All times are GMT +13. The time now is 05:22. |
Powered by Trololololooooo
© Copyright NZGames.com 1996-2024
Site paid for by members (love you guys)