Is the emphasis over the EFB changing in an ever-so-subtle way?
I think it started out as a mish-mash which was hastily written and rubber-stamped.
You might blame the three-year electoral cycle for this, but I blame the fact that Labour did not do enough to facilitate this Bill. They tried to get the numbers to introduce State-Funded Political Parties and that failed. It begs the question 'How much cross-party consultation was attempted by both sides?'
In the meantime the 'Emergency' Retrospective Legislation over the Pledge card overspend was left in limbo, and something had to be done about that.
The results are the EFB and Enabling Bill.
Labour sympathisers have recently begun to defend the EFB as the only logical result of the intransigence and negativity of The National Party towards electoral reform because it would interfere with National's ability to 'buy' elections.
One school of thought suggests that elections cannot be 'bought' people will not be told what to think.
This is clearly not the Government's view. To underpin this, they have given themselves a blank cheque to spend on 'public information' to the electorate to tell them stuff like drinking and driving is bad, kiwisaver is great, domestic violence is bad, WFF is great, etc.
The intellectual justification for the EFB - well I came close to getting one today:
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=776#comment-6531
R0b:
In theory of democracy we have the concept of avoiding “the tyranny of the majority”. In other words, the rights of minorities must be protected. It’s not the case that the majority should have unlimited power.
Similarly, in the practice of democracy, we have the concept of “a level playing field”. In other words, the rights of less powerful groups must be protected. It’s not the case that the rich and powerful should have unlimited power.
Consequently, every functioning democracy has limits and restrictions on campaign spending, to try and create a level playing field. (Those that argue that money can’t buy elections can find a few minor examples to support their cause, but the overwhelming majority of evidence shows that money can and does buy opinions, including elections. Why else do we have an advertising industry? Why else do so many democracies regulate money in campaigning? Money doesn’t buy elections? - Yeah Right.)
For these reasons, like most democracies, NZ has always had laws governing campaign spending. The EFB represents an attempt to tighten up and modernise those laws. It’s not a fundamental constitutional change (like the introduction of MMP). It’s not an assault on free speech. It doesn’t selectively persecute any minority. It just tidies up existing rules that define the level playing field that is required for democracy.
National oppose the EFB because it will limit the power of their clandestine money to buy elections. For obvious reasons they dress this fight up in the ill fitting clothes of “free speech”. Well, (in the slightly mangled words of Mandy Rice-Davies) they would, wouldn’t they.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/detoc/1_ch15.htm
http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/980.html
I looked at this site also for a discussion about the 'level playing field':
http://nzconservative.blogspot.com/2007/11/unions-electioneering.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Lee - I've just posted on this, and made these comments about the "level playing field" that King is so uppity about:
"King is right - it wasn't a level playing field. Labour told the Chief Electoral Officer that the pledge card would be included in the election expenditure accounts, and then deliberately and calculatingly changed its mind, effectively campaigning with an additional $800,000 of taxpayer money."
I've also got into the "disclosure" thing that our mates at The Standard get so uptight about.
Post a Comment