Democracy funding: in the public interest

Tony has been using the phrase 'democracy funding' as his framing of the issue of public funding of political parties. He has a number of pieces on it, the most recent of which is here.

I am always suspicious of things the Right attack hard on, and they are attacking hard on this, so let me explain why I support public funding of democratic politics, and why the Right are opposing it. First some points in support:

1. Public funding is disinterested. There is no quid pro quo possible for public funding, unlike funding from sectional interest groups. Public funding is therefore 'clean' and means that the party institutions do not rely on big business or unions or hidden trusts (or Brethren churches) to finance their campaigns. Disinterested public funding would mean parties could fight on their principles regardless of the amount of "money" that comes in behind those principles - their funding would be determined by votes received, not how rich their backers were. That's good for democracy.
2. Cleaning up politics. National in particular is guilty of hiding its funders behind secretive trusts. In the most recent election, it went to the extent of lying about a well-financed campaign by the Brethren Church in support of its political ambitions. By implementing funding through the public purse, and removing the ability to make large or secretive donations, the transparency and cleanliness of politics can be assured. That's good for democracy.
3. Honesty about public funding. As Helen Clark has noted, up to $350m of parliamentary funding could in theory now be disallowed if the draft Solicitor General's opinion is found to be correct, meaning all parties would have been breaking the law for many years. Parliamentary Service staff are compromised in many situations by the "political" nature of their work which simultaneously is about working for politicians, but not for "politics". It's dumb and in other countries the rules are much plainer. Straight public funding and workable rules for taxpayer funded Parl Service staff and funding would make life easier for everyone, and be more honest for voters. That's good for democracy.
4. Revitalising political parties. My experience of Labour and knowledge of other parties, shows me clearly that most people spend most of their political time raising funds for election campaigns. Policymaking, discussion about values and the future always comes second to raising cash. This leaves policy and power in the hands of parliamentary parties, and away from the broader base of activists in the political parties. With proper public funding, the focus can go on what parties are meant to actually do: debate and develop policies, and talk with the public about their vision for the future. This would increase the number of people who want to engage with party organisations, and increase the power of party organisations relative to the parliamentary parties. That's good for democracy.
5. Fair distribution of campaign resources. The money parties have to campaign with would be based on their electoral support, not how deep the pockets of their backers are. If we believe that we should have a one person one vote system, and that every vote is equal, then what could be fairer than to say that the key tool to win votes - campaign funding - should be determined in the same way, with a strong per-vote element to public funding? By making sure funds related to real support, such a change is good for democracy.

It's win win win all around... and of course, it favours the left. Why? We can unpick this by looking at why the right opposes public funding of political parties.

1. Murk is Good! Right wing parties hide their funding and hate the idea of transparency. The status quo allows shadowy elements to have an unhealthy influence - over policy making (National's ACC policy and large donations from insurance firms, as an example), over campaigning (Brethren) and so on. Transparency would reduce the amount the right gets to campaign with.
2. We have more money and power, let us use it dammit! The right stands for the interests of those with money and power. The left stands for redistributing money and power more fairly. Of course those with great wealth will try and protect it, and those with least cannot spend as much. The right spent far more than the left in the 2005 campaign (remember that National's billboard campaign began long before the 3 month limit, and that National failed to declare the Brethren's campaign). They hate the idea of evening up the scales.
3. We don't have as many activists! In most parts of New Zealand, Labour has a stronger on the ground presence than National. If the money equation was made fair through public funding, then National would be on the defensive. That would be bad for National, but it would be good for democracy. The honest efforts of citizens getting out and supporting their parties - not with a cheque but with sweat - should be able to make a difference to political outcomes. It can, if money is made fairer.

No doubt you can think of many others. It is funny to see the representatives of established power and money trying to portray public funding as an attack on legitimate political support. There is a lot of nonsense talked about how state funding would somehow disempower non-parliamentary parties. As I've noted, the opposite would most likely be the case.

The only concern I have with public funding is the possibility that it might entrench the current suite of parties, at the expense of new movements and currents. This can be managed though, with a responsive system that looks forward as well as back. That'd be detail to be worked out.

In principle, though, the only question one needs to ask is this: Who should own the funding of our political parties? All of us, or the rich backers who always want a payoff for their dollars?

The answer's obvious. Democracy funding is in the public interest. The sooner we join the rest of the developed world and implement it, the better.

Comments

[whatsittoya]

Typical. Assume voters are stupid and easily swayed. Spend more on ballons and you win public office. But then you may be right - Labour did win the last election.

[Billy]

I know, Labour deliberately and knowingly (remember the pre-election correspondence with the chief electoral officer acknowledging the pledge card spending would be included) spent $1m more than it was allowed to to generate public debate on a better way of funding election spending. And then the solution...of course! Let's forceably take whatever we think we could spend.

[GeniusNZ]

Public funding sounds like a good idea. We obviously wouldn't want the other end of the scale like America.

However in regard to honesty about public funding, I tend to hope politicians are at least reasonably smart. If a party isn't smart enough to understand the election rules, it is hard to see how they are smart enough to run a country. That is unless they were "having us on" (which fortunately I am confident they were - in a choice between bad things 'corrupt' beats completely incompetent)...

[innocentIII]

Poor quality analysis actually - a partisan rant.

(1) Public funding isn’t disinterested at all. Look at the two big party wrought on the subsidisation of broadcasting costs. They ensure they get the lions share of the money and ensure that others are not free to exercise their freedom of political speech. Public funding will mean some political parties (like Labour) will be almost entirely reliant on taxpayers money. Asking for financial support for one’s programme is an essential part of the functioning democracy. Its also very “State” centred and focused. Had this system applied between 1916 – 1935 Labour itself would probably not have succeeded as a political movement outside as it was the institutions of the State.

(2) It won’t cleaning up politics at all. There is no evidence for this overseas where taxpayer subsidisation regimes apply if fact the reverse is the case. Here the greatest dishonesty in politics is personal dishonesty. You guys go on about the Exclusive Brethren – please cite the exact section of the Electoral Act 1993 that makes their exercise of their democratic right of free speech part of National’s election activity and therefore returnable by National as an election expense? Your real objection is to the exercise of this freedom by ordinary citizens that don’t like Labour. Tough!

(3) Honesty about public funding. Are you serious!!!!!! Just look at the pledge cards that were totally OTT when it comes to what Parliamentary Service should be paying for. I am also wary of Labour trying to de-fund individual MPs and shift this to the Leader and the Party. This will make MPs unhealthily dependent on largess from the Leader/Party. Of course they lust after it for central control reasons.

(4) If you want to revitalise political parties try boosting Labour Party membership from the approx 5000 (probably) members. Solicit financial and membership support of your fellow citizens not just the lowest value transaction: their vote. Of course Labour doesn't actually want members: apart from the 1930’s its never been a mass membership party.

(5) What is “fair” about campaign resources? There is nothing fair about elections at all. What nonsense. Let citizens freely decide who they financially support – try getting off your arse and asking them for a donation – that will be good for both voter and party.

State funding for Labour will do for it over time what legislative support for unions has done to them. Labour will lose its campaigning zeal and energy. It will become fat and lazy because it is hooked to the taxpayers like a milking machine to a cow. It’s the ultimate corruption of the Labour Party – a Party formed to remake the State would be almost entirely dependant on it. Shocking really. And the Parties of the right will bide their time to “cold turkey” the Labour Party.

And what Mr Carter also fails to explicitly mention however its implicit in the tone of his post is all the restrictions and rules Labour will propose in order to further remove the right of citizens to exercise their right of political expression by freely choosing to donate to a political cause. Our current Electoral laws are pretty Stalinist, Mr Carter proposes to go further and further down this path.

[tim barclay]

I doubt the Labour Party has more than 500 active members. They have never been a mass membership party for a number of reasons but the block votes of the unions kills off any enthusiasm of the ordinary volunteer.

[sagenz]

Address the key point. Both the major parties can raise the full amount that parties are legally allowed to spend. Why change something that is not broken? Simply enforce the rules as they are.

Both parties should be forced to declare the true source of their donations. Hiding behind trusts and unions is not desirable in a good democracy.

[GeniusNZ]

Problem is how to enforce it. money can always be "laundered" via another source - e.g. I pay ‘Bill’ 10,000 dollars and he pays Helen. But I expect we could definitely make the system better and it would be good to know who’s paying for those trusts.

[Ray]

I just wonder how keen Jordan would be if National held the Treasurery Benches and consquently control of a state fund for re-election
Still look good Jordan

[Logix]

You guys go on about the Exclusive Brethren – please cite the exact section of the Electoral Act 1993 that makes their exercise of their democratic right of free speech part of National’s election activity and therefore returnable by National as an election expense?

OK I'm not too unhappy with that principle. Let's make the massive EB campaign non-returnable. And now explain WHY the Union expenditure should be returnable? If it is OK for the EB's to have free speech, then so be it for the Unions. You cannot have it both ways.

Just look at the pledge cards that were totally OTT when it comes to what Parliamentary Service should be paying for. I am also wary of Labour trying to de-fund individual MPs and shift this to the Leader and the Party.

David Henry's handling of this issue has been ambominable. The pledge card thing had been done in both the 1999 and 2002 elections, why the hell then did he wait until 3/4 of the way through the 2005 campaign to rule it out of order? Campaigns are are planned years in advance, the actions of the Cheif Electoral Officer in changing the rule interpretation mid-game as it were, was incompetent at best, and invites suspicions of corrupt practice at worst.

What is “fair” about campaign resources? There is nothing fair about elections at all. What nonsense

Why have any "rules" at all. You can hardly whine about Labour "not playing fair" under the rules...and then in the next para declare that "there is nothing fair about elections". Spot the massive contradiction?

Our current Electoral laws are pretty Stalinist,

Automatic thread whistle...making idiotic comparison to Hitler, Stalin or Mgabe is eye-wateringly daft. Get out of your mother's back-bedsit and take a walk in the sunshine.... NZ is one of the most open, capitalist, free-market, democratic and corruption free places on the planet.

[tim barclay]

What ever way you look at it the Labour Party has used a substantual amount of public money for its electioneering purposes. This is money that was NOT use for this purpose by other paries or at least to the same degree. If this is validated then the Labour Party has been allowed to rob the Treasury for its own purpose. It will remain for a future National Government to force the Labour Party to pay back this money and that will be for a future Parliament to decide.

[Mark]

Looks like another of Helen's lies has been exposed.

Prior approval from Parliamentary Service is not sought and there is no opportunity for the Parliamentary Service to vet spending at any stage prior to payment.

[Jim D]

"The sooner we join the rest of the developed world and implement it, the better."

Great, so you'll be supporting Wayne Mapp's 90 Day Bill too. Well done Jordan!

[Peter Cresswell]

How one "cleans up politics" by legalising corruption is apparent, I guess, only to someone who was and who intends to be a beneficiary of that corruption.

If any proposal more venal than this has been peddled in democracy's name, then I for one am struggling to recall it.

[Sean]

No suprise here. The 'left' - being composed primarily of those who are unable to generate wealth themselves - need to force the 'right' to cough up for everything. Man, what a bunch of losers!

[innocentIII]

Oh dear Logix - the name is a bit of a misnomer

I established no principle regarding the Electoral Act treatment of the activities of the Exclusive Brethren. It is the Left who keep asserting that it’s an electoral activity by National and therefore returnable by them as an electoral expense.

Note: you don’t address the issue.

Some Unions are part of the Labour Party, they formally affiliate to it, they are represented on its NZ Council, Conference and their members can vote at selection meetings. They are part of the Labour Party. Thus the relationship to the Labour Party plus the content of what is done can make this activity an electoral expense for Labour.

Not all Union activity becomes an expense for Labour – it depends on the relationship and content. I have never had a problem with Unions being active in elections. I just think most of what they do isn’t particularly helpful to Labour. However they are free to do so.

David Henry's is very competent and a fine public servant. I would check out if I were you how long he has been in the job. He was asked by National for an opinion on the Pledge Card in 2005. He gave it. Did National seek an opinion previously in 1999 & 2002? How long has he been in the job? Do your research.

If campaigns are planned years ahead are you telling us that Labour long intended to drive a bus through the Electoral Act? Are you saying that because Labour long intended to use public funds for its electioneering that those officials charged with enforcing the law should turn a bind eye to this? Looks like Stalinism …. Quacks like Stalinism…..

There hasn’t been “a change in position” by the Chief Electoral Officer.

The nonsense about equal distribution of campaign resources is so because the voters financially support some candidates/Parties more than others for a whole variety of reasons. As voters are free to shift their vote about so they are free to shift financial support about and to withhold it. There is nothing “fair” about this that is just the way it is. This isn’t an argument for no law governing elections nor is it a justification to hook up to public funding because Labour cannot get members and the freely given financial support of its fellow citizens.

What outrages you and other of the Left about the Exclusive Brethren is their complete effrontery. How dear they meddle in politics and advocate for those things they believe in with their fellow citizens. They have no right to involve themselves in politics and policy – that is the sole business and concern of the established political parties. This is the attitude at the core of your drumbeat.

As so the left whip themselves up into believing they should limit further the right to political free speech by passing more laws to control and limit political activity to those who are “authorised” in their view to participate. Couple this with a lust for further public funding. Mmmmm to my mind what looks like Stalinism and smells like Stalinism probably is Stalinism.

Yes Logix sunlight is indeed good. It is disinfecting much to Labour’s discomfort at the moment.

[PaulL]

Assume for a minute that we move to public funding of election campaigns, and assume for a minute that we cap that funding a the exact amount of the current spending limit. What exactly changes?
- The exclusive Bretheren still have a right to advocate for whatever policies they wish - it is legal
- The unions still have a right to advocate for whatever policies they wish - it is legal
- The parties had to do less work to get their supporters to fund them - they are less accountable
- There is still a bunch of money in the system that people were prepared to donate - and that will find its way to some form of influence structure - whether it is issue advocacy or before the 3 month limit or whatever

Nothing has changed about the relative amounts the parties had to spend - both parties had the same amount available legally (and some available illegally to the Labour party). The whole meme about the right having "shadowy" backers is irrelevant to this discussion (and, of course, I note that the left has a number of large donations from foreigners, plus in the US at least the "rich" are very strong supporters of the left).

I am unsure what this great new idea actually solves other than the problem of parties having to fundraise - it won't change the amount of money available to them.

[Logix]

1. "Thus the relationship to the Labour Party plus the content of what is done can make this activity an electoral expense for Labour."

So in effect you are happy to penalise the left for it's upfront, well-known relationship with the Labour party, yet when a retrograde crowd like the EB to campaign deceitfully on behalf of the right, because there is no "formal" written relationship to National...it doesn't get included as electionioneering expenditure? The dishonesty of this position is breathtaking. Don't give us tosh about the EB's being some nuetral non-related third party...they were neck-deep in the National campaign, with massive back-door funding and huge hours from "unpaid" volunteers. So much so that Brash had to flat-out lie for weeks about his knowledge of their activities.

2. "Are you saying that because Labour long intended to use public funds for its electioneering that those officials charged with enforcing the law should turn a bind eye to this?"

The "Parliamentary Leader's Fund" had been used for this purpose at in two previous elections without formal challenge. Why then would planning to do it a third time be "driving a bus" through anything? Henry leaving his objections so late in the electoral cycle really amounted to a "constructive entrapment". He must have known that Labour would have extreme difficulty changing their electoral campaign strategey just weeks before an election.

3. "There hasn’t been “a change in position” by the Chief Electoral Officer"

What planet are you living on? Of course there has been. Otherwise we would have been having this discussion in the year 2000, not 2006.

4. "The nonsense about equal distribution of campaign resources is so because the voters financially support some candidates/Parties more than others for a whole variety of reasons."

The days of mass-member parties is over. They ALL depend on major donations from corporates and a handful of wealthy donors. This arrangement places our democracy hostage to the undisclosed agendas of a very few individuals. This is the vital issue...the rest is booga booga distraction. Have a think about that if you are capable of it.

5. "How dear they meddle in politics and advocate for those things they believe in with their fellow citizens."

FFS are you defending what these fundamentalist bigots "believe" in? Has it escaped you that they do not even believe in letting their members vote? And then they have the "effrontery" alright to go around lecturing the rest of the nation how we should vote!!! Presumably they figure that because us heathen unbelievers are all going to fry in hell for all eternity anyway, it doesn't matter if the befoul ourselves a little more with the sinful act of voting a few more times. Christ on a pogo stick...is it REALLY OK with you to have your precious National Party beholden to these throwback retards?

6. "to my mind what looks like Stalinism and smells like Stalinism probably is Stalinism."

Normally I try not to get personal...but on this point you are so fricken wrong that I am telling you that if I could reach you right now I would cheerfully beat you to pulp and fuck the consequences. Not too many New Zealanders even KNOW where Magadan is, much less been there...or have seen for themselves the desolation that was the "Highway of Bones". Well I have. I KNOW what Stalinism was...I saw with my own eyes the leftover detritus of the inhuman, insane, incomprehensible cruelty that was the gulags. Your vile ignorance is complete, yet you mis-use the word "Stalinist" as a casual insult on a thread....and thereby desecrate the misery and suffering of millions. Fuck you. And I mean it...very personally.

[Aj]

"What outrages you and other of the Left about the Exclusive Brethren is their complete effrontery. How dear they meddle in politics and advocate for those things they believe in with their fellow citizens."

Outrage? I would'nt waste rage on them. They are so transparently 'mainstream' why bother.
One of the things they believe in is that their 'fellow citizens'' should vote. Effrontery? you would know it if your tripped over it.
We know who's being stalinist here.

National are so keen to defend this far right cult and be associated with them - they are welcome to them.

[GeniusNZ]

> Yet when a retrograde crowd like the EB

What other minority groups do you use such language in regard to?
However if you can demonstrate that national breached the law in regard to the EB then go for it. Otherwise as long as national doesn’t have to pass laws to make their previous activity legal it’s a slightly different situation.

> The "Parliamentary Leader's Fund" had been used for this purpose at in two previous elections without formal challenge.

That’s a bit like saying the pipi foundation was funding stomach stapling operations for many years why can't they just keep on doing it? No one could be expected to cancel their operation once they were on the waiting list even if they were told they were breaking the law.

> He must have known that Labour would have extreme difficulty changing their electoral campaign strategy just weeks before an election.

And yet that is exactly what they were obliged to do. If you don't like how he did it, then it can be taken up with him - but it doesn't excuse labour for ignoring it.

> Has it escaped you that they do not even believe in letting their members vote?

They are quirky. But it takes a certain level of hypocrisy to complain that they don’t vote and they complain that they influence the vote.

> Beholden to these throwback retards?

If you actually knew any of them EB are not "retards", they just have an odd religion, and it seems deeply non-liberal for people to run around attacking them and hypocritical if one does so without also attacking Muslims and all sorts of other groups.

Potentially the four guys who were mostly behind this might have been nasty (although I doubt it) but the run of the mill EB person is seems pretty plesant.

[innocentIII]

Logix

Thanks for all the threats of violence – somewhat childish – you can be better than this.

Response to 1 & 5:

I am not penalizing the Labour Party for its formal relationship with some Unions – that is for them to determine.

Again you attack the Exclusive Brethren for having the temerity to express their views, views which you find unacceptable. That’s fine. Let the voters decide. Have some confidence in your fellow citizens. But your threats of violence tend to support my thesis.

Again you claim the electoral activities of the Exclusive Brethren should be included in National’s electoral return without addressing the legal mechanism for this. You would have to establish some legally recognized species of agency for this to work in as this Church is not formally or structurally part of the National Party.

Unfortunately for you citizen groups can involve themselves in trying to persuade their fellow citizens to support this or that. The right of political expression is not limited to the established political parties. I regard this as vital for our democracy whether I agree or disagree with what is said by those groups.

Unpaid volunteers never have the value of their labour represented in any electoral return be they Union volunteers or Church volunteers. Voluntary involvement in elections is vital for our democracy I would like to see more of it.

Response to 2&3

No complaint was previously made to the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the pledge cards in 1999 or 2002. Fact.

There is no doubt in my mind that they should have been included in Labour’s electoral returns for those elections and 2005 irrespective of how they are paid for. This is an issue of how they are accounted for in Labour’s return. Whether Labour did this or not is up to them – their legal advice and competence and good judgement.

As to the question of whether the spend of public money is lawful, that is a different question from whether it should be included in Labour’s electoral return or not. Realistically if the Chief Electoral Officer says it’s an electoral activity within the meaning of sections 213 or 214B of the Electoral Act 1993 then it’s going to be “electioneering” within the meaning of the “brightline” rules proffered by the Auditor General and backed by the Solicitor General and therefore an illegal spend.

Response 4:

At 5000 members Labour is just too small and closed shop this is a micro party actually. There are plenty of examples where political campaigns raise funds from lots of donors. I suggest you recognise that fundraising is an important function in politics. As to the sway you assert that goes with donations: you clearly under-estimate both the donor and the political party. Actually political fundraising doesn’t work that way you clear haven’t been involved with any of it.

Response to 6:

Ever increasing regulation of the freedom of political expression coupled with ever increasing State dominance of the political process by public funding and the removal and limitation of the right of citizens to freely financially contribute to political causes is a species of Stalinism to my mind. If the use of the term offends you then tough. Get over it.

Nor will I be awake at night worring about your threats of violence and thuggery which old Joe would recognise only too well.

[Logix]

If the use of the term offends you then tough. Get over it.

It offends me. No I will not be getting over it...still feel free to fuck off Nazi cunt. My threats are of course idle tosh...but you really do piss me off that much.

[GPT]

Logix - ah yes, anyone who disagrees with your views is a Nazi. How very convincing.

Hell if that is the best the left can come up with even Jordon must be wondering whether he's got this one correct!

[Logix]

No more convincing that your delusional "Stalinist" drek. Listen up verminous boofhead, YOU are the one who started the idiotic name-calling...and trust me...I can go on serving you like with like just as long as you are stupid enough to keep it up, which likely you will be, you sub-cretinous fascist baby-fucker.

[troy]

Whats the diff between the EB endorsing National and the decades of endorsement by Ratana Church of the Labour party?

Would you people who so deride the Bretherns be happy to say the same abour Ratana?

Didnt think so - although as the now don't toe the Labour line I'm sure somewhere down the track you will.

[GPT]

Any toys still left in the cot Logix? I guess when you try and defend the palpably ridiculous you only have abuse left in your arsenal.

[Exclusive Brethren Victim]

I have been interested to read the comments regarding the Exclusive Brethren in this blog and the vicious controversies raging between the 'Nazis' and the 'Stalinists.' If you have a look at the political activities of the EBs throughout the world, you will see that they have aligned themselves strongly with the extreme Right. They supported Bush, Brash and Howard. They oppose Greens, Unions and homosexuals. Clear, but nothing new about that. If Hitler was alive today, he would do the same.

With their track record of destroying lives (like my own), any party (Right Wing or otherwise) would do well to disassociate themselves. Have a look at the articles in Sydney Morning Herald and The Mercury (Tasmania) this year, and at the site, Peeb.net if you want an informed opinion.

The problem is that many Governments - whether Right or Left, having gained control are not satisfied to hold the respectable middle ground, but use their position of power to move towards their most extreme proclivities.