The Herald claims:
Non-parties have to register as "third parties" if they want to spend more than specified amounts of their own money. The mere fact that political expression is no longer a simple matter of buying time or space for public messages and including a named authorisation is probably enough to deter any group that is not practised in the art of compliance with state regulations and procedures.
I have spoken to the Electoral Commission about this myself and was told the opposite.
Any person other than a political party officer or candidate can spend any amount of money they like communicating their views on any number of issues PROVIDED they do not name any political parties or candidates or the positions of any parties or candidates. You also can't tell people who to vote for or against. All you need to do is make sure you include your name and address. Your views are your 'statement of position'.
Third parties need only register if they intend to discuss parties and / or candidates and refer directly to their positions on policy.
Otherwise, you are completely free to speak your mind on any number of issues. Empty your bank account if you please. No limits.
I can clearly see opportunity here for enabling public debate on any topic. It certainly does mean a change of approach to traditional campaigns, but there is NO limit on any person saying what they think on any issue provided they talk about the issue.
The editorial is further evidence that stupid people work at the electoral commission and people like you believe their advice.
ReplyDeleteBecause the Herald is correct.
dave: What can I say? "Peter" at the EC told me that what I proposed was fine. Maybe you should talk to him.
ReplyDeleteWhat you wanted to do might have been okay but a lot of other communication falls foul of the EFA.
ReplyDeleteIt is not just that you can't name a political party and debate its policies in a publication(which is a constraint on freedom of speech). You can't use any form of words or graphics which might be regarded as persuading people to vote for or against a party.
So if you want to campaign on an issue strongly identified with a party you're caught up in the Act.
hp: I agree, for what it's worth. I guess I'm lacking in sympathy because I've seen past travesties of electoral spending not only go unpunished, but be perfectly legal.
ReplyDeleteThe multi-million dollar, Naitonal party "proxy" campaign run by the CBG in 1993 against MMP pretty much exhausted my supply of sympathy for politicians suffering any inconvenience due to spending restrictions.
I agree that Labour's law has some serious problems.
But they don't affect me.
Blogs are free to say what they like - akin to the media. So again I can say what I like about any party, candidate or policy without restriction.
Generally speaking, I don't necessarily agree that any person not an office-holder or candidate for a party can't talk about a policy I like just because it happens to also be promoted by a political party.
I agree that IS the sort of advice a lawyer might give, being hyper-cautious. I've ad to work with Lawyers when I was at IBM and came to understand their advice was conservative and covered their butts.....but it was really just advice and if taken wold and could paralyse business. So we frequently hard the lawyers, made changes that made sense...and ignored the hyper-caution.
I hear a lot of "hyper-caution" from lawyers reverberating through the EFA debate. I take it with a grain of salt now as I did then.
But for political purposes, the hyper-caution makes great propaganda and fun news copy.
Having said THAT....as I started..there clearly ARE problems with the EFA.
The just aren't my problems. Nor are they the problems of the 99.9% of Kiwis who aren't party office holders or candidates. ;-)
Interestingly, almost none of them want to spend any money on the election. So the problem is a very interesting and quite specific one.
If you really wantto find out whqtth EFA says, thererealy only two I know of that know their stuff
ReplyDeleteDavid Farrar and Graeme Edgeler. OH, and perhaps Stephen Price. I`d take their advice before the Electoral Commission's word any day
dave: I've read the EFA, and what I saw there didn't tally with what some people have been saying.
ReplyDeleteMy starting point was that it doesn't prevent me from saying whatever I want about any party or any policy. Blogs are specifically exempted. So are media.
Any person can freely state their own views on any issue without dollar limits or limits on content, provided they don't name parties or candidates or tell people who to vote for or against.
Given the political parties usually have little that is meaningful or useful to say about policy, I think this law may actually make things better insome ways.
What is National upset about? They aren't talking about policy anyway. and have no plans to until it's far too late for anyone to pay much detailed attention.
The EFA will clear away much of the the empty noise and clutter the parties put out. Is that a bad thing?