The Electoral Finance Bill

[Ab]

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.

[Draco T Bastard]

Protest marches? Fuck off - I'm glad this bill is going through.

[Rince]

I *was* interested in the protest marches, until I listened to the ad a bit closer - sponsored by Family First.......


lose/lose

[StN]

Does this mean that the political parties won't be allowed to advertise during "Californication"?

[armourking]

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.

[StN]

Originally Posted by armourking

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.

Don't need a constitution for those rights.

[Juju]

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.

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by armourking

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.

It doesn't impact your free speech at all - there are just some restrictions on how much you can spend to say it during election year just like all other electioneering. It also brings in a lot more transparency to donations to political parties.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by armourking

Can anyone actually explain to me how this impacts my free speech

it actually strengthens free speech by getting rid of 'money politics' where more wealthy groups have a competitive advantage in the form of intensified marketing

[armourking]

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?

[Lightspeed]

National is against the bill, so I'm for it.

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.

[Draco T Bastard]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00311.htm

We plan to attack those parties who are opposed to our aims – and we will actively seek votes for those parties who support us.

If this Bill becomes law we will have to register as a ‘third party’ and be limited to what we can spend on advertising and promoting our case.

Translation: We want to do some electioneering but don't want the rules to apply to us.
----------------------------------------



*Decided to move a copy of this post into this thread as it does relate specifically to this topic

[Ab]

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?

[Lightspeed]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4280913a6160.html

Both the Human Rights Commission and Coalition for Open Government are pleased with the revisions to the Electoral Finance Bill.

[Juju]

However, the doubled cap for third party spending – $120,000 in yesterday's version of the bill – was not high enough.

Dr McGregor said the commission was disappointed there would not be another round of public consultation following the changes.

[Lightspeed]

Article was linked for context. Point being that there were no cries of "WORST. LAW. EVER."

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4280913a6160.html
Both the Human Rights Commission and Coalition for Open Government are pleased with the revisions to the Electoral Finance Bill.

That's kinda like saying "I'm pleased that instead of being anally raped while being choked to death, I will instead be anally raped THEN choked to death."

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.

[Lightspeed]

Well that's bad. Where can this information be viewed?

[Ab]

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

[TnT]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Article was linked for context. Point being that there were no cries of "WORST. LAW. EVER."

So you're ok.

Originally Posted by Ab

That's kinda like saying "I'm pleased that instead of being anally raped while being choked to death, I will instead be anally raped THEN choked to death."

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.

You however, against the wall.

Long Live Fuhrer Clark

[funnel web]

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.

[armourking]

Originally Posted by Ab

That's kinda like saying "I'm pleased that instead of being anally raped while being choked to death, I will instead be anally raped THEN choked to death."

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.

Guess I'll just have to continue my political actions by continuing to vote.

[[Malks] Pixie]

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

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Article was linked for context. Point being that there were no cries of "WORST. LAW. EVER."

Human Rights Commision press release:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0710/S00269.htm

Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan said the cumulative effect of the measures in the bill meant it was incompatible with the Bill of Rights.

Active participation in the political process was vital to democracy and the bill’s provisions could stifle legitimate debate and political contributions for nearly a third of the electoral cycle, she said.

The commission also thought there was an issue around the benefits the party in power had during election campaigns; advantages included being the mouthpiece of policy and having the infrastructure of government.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by [Malks] Pixie

So Ab - do you disagree with the intention of the legislation or just it's current form?

I think the intention of the legislation is quite clear -- win Labour the upcoming election it looks like losing. It has just been cleverly spun so that some people think it's about minimising the influence of rich special interest groups.

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".

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Ab

The Bill has one purpose and one purpose only: to keep Labour in power.

No it doesn't.

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.

No it doesn't and no you wouldn't.
From here

    The following 〈publications〉
(2)                                        are not election 35
    advertisements:
12
                      Electoral Finance                 Part 1 cl 5
(a)  an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electo-
     ral Officer, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Electoral
     Commission, or any other agency charged with respon-
     sibilities in relation to the conduct of any official public-
     ity or information campaign to be conducted on behalf          5
     of the Government of New Zealand and relating to
     electoral matters or the conduct of any general election
     or by-election and which either contains a statement
     indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by
     that officer or agency, or contains a symbol indicating         10
     that the advertisement has been authorised by that
     officer or agency:
                   Struck out (majority)
<snip>
                      New (majority)
(c)  any editorial material, other than advertising material,
     in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or
     with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of
     informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
(d) any broadcast, in relation to an election, of news or of
     comments or of current affairs programmes:
(da) any editorial material, other than advertising material,
     published on a news media website that is written by, or
     selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person
     responsible for the website solely for the purpose of
     informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:

When making such claims it is usually a good idea to know WTF you're talking about rather than just listening to biased sources that would be affected by the legislation such as the NZHerald, The National Party and supporters, Act and supporters etc.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

I think the intention of the legislation is quite clear -- win Labour the upcoming election it looks like losing. It has just been cleverly spun so that some people think it's about minimising the influence of rich special interest groups.

Right - so I'll ask again but be a bit more specific - I understand you do not like this legislation in it's current form and obviously feel that it's being brought in for specific reasons by the government - that wasn't really what I was asking (and didn't expect a throw away answer actually).

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

[Ab]

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.

[doppelgänger of someone]

Source:

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Le...nance-Bill.htm

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by funnel web

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.

It just brings more people under the electioneering laws that we have had for the last century or so to help maintain our democracy rather than handing it to the rich.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by Ab

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.

Absolutley - which is why I included election spending (in general) in there. I was just really interested if you were in favor of the prinicapal (as the current draft is a mess and I don't think anyone would be happy with it in it's current form).

Pixie

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

It just brings more people under the electioneering laws that we have had for the last century or so to help maintain our democracy rather than handing it to the rich.

The current law, the Electoral Act, was only passed in 1993.

FYI, it says on the subject of electioneering:

no person shall publish or cause or permit to be published in any newspaper, periodical, poster, or handbill, or broadcast or cause or permit to be broadcast over any radio or television station, any advertisement relating to an election unless the advertisement contains a statement setting out the true name of the person for whom or at whose direction it is published and the address of that person’s place of residence or business.

The Electoral Finance Bill says that all of these are advertising in the year of an election:

to

(a) print or insert in a periodical published or distributed in New Zealand; or
(b) issue, hand out, or display; or
(c) send to any member of the public by any means; or
(d) deliver to any member of the public, or leave at a place owned or occupied by a member of the public; or
(e) broadcast; or
(f) include in a film or video displayed to the public; or
(g) disseminate by means of the Internet or any other electronic medium; or
(h) store electronically in a way that is accessible to the public; or
(i) bring to the notice of the public in any other manner

That's supposed to be an improvement? Where for anyone to "bring to the notice of the public in any manner" is an act of political advertisement regulated by law? For a YEAR instead of 30 days?

Have you lost your mind?

[slippers]

Basically in short - we can't publicly discuss/debate an election..period.

Thats like wrong.

[Redneck]

Yep, it's obscene

[Draco T Bastard]

Originally Posted by Ab

The current law, the Electoral Act, was only passed in 1993.

But electioneering restrictions have been in place for over a century in NZ.

Have you lost your mind?

I'll quote the EFB that was released by the select committee yesterday again

The following 〈publications〉are not election advertisements:

(a)  an advertisement that is published by the Chief Electo-
     ral Officer, the Chief Registrar of Electors, the Electoral
     Commission, or any other agency charged with respon-
     sibilities in relation to the conduct of any official public-
     ity or information campaign to be conducted on behalf          5
     of the Government of New Zealand and relating to
     electoral matters or the conduct of any general election
     or by-election and which either contains a statement
     indicating that the advertisement has been authorised by
     that officer or agency, or contains a symbol indicating         10
     that the advertisement has been authorised by that
     officer or agency:
                   Struck out (majority)
<snip>
                      New (majority)
(c)  any editorial material, other than advertising material,
     in a periodical that is written by, or is selected by or
     with the authority of, the editor solely for the purpose of
     informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:
(d) any broadcast, in relation to an election, of news or of
     comments or of current affairs programmes:
(da) any editorial material, other than advertising material,
     published on a news media website that is written by, or
     selected by or with the authority of, the editor or person
     responsible for the website solely for the purpose of
     informing, enlightening, or entertaining readers:

They made it broad and then put in some exceptions. This website and others like it are one of the exceptions (see bold part). This is, IMO, how to make a good law.

[chubby]

Originally Posted by Ab

Guess you have to get in while you can, such protests will be illegal if the Bill passes.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Draco T Bastard

They made it broad and then put in some exceptions. This website and others like it are one of the exceptions (see bold part).

I refer you to Clause 53(1) paragraph a and Clause 4(1) paragraph g. This isn't a "news media website". Neither is email, IRC, amateur blogs, Usenet, Youtube, or Trademe. And all of them now fall under the Bill.

[Juju]

Originally Posted by Ab

I refer you to Clause 53(1) paragraph a and Clause 4(1) paragraph g. This isn't a "news media website". Neither is email, IRC, amateur blogs, Usenet, Youtube, or Trademe. And all of them now fall under the Bill.

Exactly. Also what is quoted by draco has no bearing on anything that isn't print or internet. I'd like to see the clauses that exclude things like radio or tv, protests, door knocking, etc.

[Ab]

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.

[Hannibal]

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