Electoral Finance Act calumny

[Winston001]

Just read an article about the Act which I had contempt for anyway. What it highlighted is that the expression of views on forums like this breach the Act, and the NZ Bill of Rights. Here is a clip from the article:


“5 Meaning of election advertisement

(1) In this Act, election advertisement—
(a) means any form of words or graphics, or both, that can reasonably be regarded as doing 1 or more of the following:
(i) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for 1 or more specified parties or for 1 or more candidates or for any combination of such parties and candidates:
(ii) encouraging or persuading voters to vote, or not to vote, for a type of party or for a type of candidate that is described or indicated by reference to views, positions, or policies that are or are not held, taken, or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated); and
(b) includes—
(i) a candidate advertisement; and
(ii) a party advertisement.

For the lucky few who fall within the exceptions provided in section 5(2), including unpaid bloggers, the EFA has no direct application. But for the rest of us, the EFA imposes significant restrictions on what can be said, when, and by whom:
• The EFA applies throughout the whole of an election year, from 1 January until close of polling on election day (except when a snap election is called): section 4;
• Under section 63(2)(a), all election advertisements must carry the name and address of their promoter;
• Under section 63(3), no promoter is permitted to spend more than the amounts specified in the EFA for the purposes of promoting his or her election advertising;
• Certain classes of people or organisations in the state sector are prohibited from publishing election advertisements at all, or causing or permitting their publication: section 67. These include chief executives of Crown entities and Government departments, Crown entities and Government departments in their corporate capacities, and “instruments of the Crown”; and
• The penalties for wilfully contravening the EFA include fines of up to $100,000 for a financial agent or party secretary convicted of corrupt practice, or $40,000 for illegal practice (sections 142 and 143).


It follows that the EFA has the potential to impose significant limitations on the right of freedom of expression, as affirmed by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), which provides:


“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”


What an appalling piece of law. :angry2:

[Finn]

So I take it you won't be voting for Auntie Helen then.

[MisterD]

What an appalling piece of law. :angry2:

Depends on your point of view - from Liarbore's it's been very successful at shutting down anti-government advertising, with the minor wrinkle that Liarbore, Jim NeAnderton, Watermelons and Winston 1st have all fallen foul of it. Not really a problem when the police are in your pocket though...

If there's a way to unlevel the playing field and get an unfair advantage you can be sure 'She' will take it...Airforce planes for electioneering? You bet.

Just be glad your name isn't Bob McCoskrie
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10536410)

[Oscar]

This piece of anti-democratic legislation is a national disgrace.
I'll bet Robert Mugabe wishes that he'd thought of it.

[Oscar]

Depends on your point of view - from Liarbore's it's been very successful at shutting down anti-government advertising, with the minor wrinkle that Liarbore, Jim NeAnderton, Watermelons and Winston 1st have all fallen foul of it. Not really a problem when the police are in your pocket though...

If there's a way to unlevel the playing field and get an unfair advantage you can be sure 'She' will take it...Airforce planes for electioneering? You bet.

Just be glad your name isn't Bob McCoskrie
(http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10536410)

The Herald and McCoskrie are breaching the act.
Burn them!

[MSTRS]

Just read an article about the Act which I had contempt for anyway. What it highlighted is that the expression of views on forums like this breach the Act, and the NZ Bill of Rights. ------------------

What an appalling piece of law. :angry2:

Didn't everyone know that before it was even passed?

[Finn]

This piece of anti-democratic legislation is a national disgrace.
I'll bet Robert Mugabe wishes that he'd thought of it.

There's a framed picture of Robert Mugabe above Helen's fireplace where there is a large worn out rug.

[Mr Merde]

.... a large worn out rug.


Too much munching?

[Tank]

Too much munching?

KA BLINGO to that man

[MisterD]

There's a framed picture of Robert Mugabe above Helen's fireplace where there is a large worn out rug.

Still, that's a refreshing change of idolised mass-murderer don't you think? I believe the rest of the party have portraits of Che Guevara.

http://media.apn.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/SteveMaharey-230.jpg

[MisterD]

a large worn out rug.

There's a joke about Winston's hairpiece in there somewhere too...

[Indiana_Jones]

How could they make such a law. :no:

Funny what people do when they want to hold onto power.

New Zealanders need to use the powers of the Magna Carter and Bill of rights 1689 more

-Indy

[jrandom]

Magna Carter

Is he related to Chris?

[Genestho]

I joined the Freedom of Speech march because I was concerned at the info I found and wanted to see the repeal of this act, back in March

The things that concerned me about this Act were this:

Certain groups and individuals are prohibited from registering in the Electoral process.

There have been limitations in the past to political parties and candidates, for the first time, they now apply to ordinary members of the public.

There are stiff penalties, including jail terms for those breaking the law.

This law was passed by six votes despite opposition of the Human Rights Commission, The NZ Law society and Editors of most of our major newspapers

Human Rights Comission described the original EFA bill as a "dramatic assault on two freedoms we cherish" - the freedom of speech and the freedom of informed citizens to participate in elections
They said the bill was "inherently flawed" and called on the Government to withdraw it.
Failing withdrawal they said if the Goverment was to amend the bill, rather than withdrawing and starting again
They identified four changes they would requires as a minimum.
In particular they said the restrictions on free speech should apply for no more than three months prior to the election, rather than full election year that started from 1st January.
Other changes were made but this change was not.
The Comission reccommended it would be essential that any changes be subjected to the widest possible scrutiny to ensure credibilty and legitamacy. They said this was best done by a further round of public consultation.

This did not happen.

The media are caught if they encourage or persuade somone to vote or not to vote for a political party or candidate. The Media are restricted to merely "informing, enlightening or entertaining readers"
Restricting what we hear in election year.

And this from a country where our forefathers fought and died to maintain the NZ way of democracy:no:

[McJim]

I personally was appalled that political parties were limited in the amount they were allowed to spend in their campaigns. Surely it's up to each party to bolster their own coffers before a general election and then spend it all in advertising to strengthen the county's economy (by keeping advertising execs in work and therefore buying perfoemance cars and paying for hookers - thus spreading the cash around) rather than blagging government funds to advertise the next government.

Weird.

[Winston001]

I personally was appalled that political parties were limited in the amount they were allowed to spend in their campaigns. Surely it's up to each party to bolster their own coffers before a general election and then spend it all in advertising to strengthen the county's economy (by keeping advertising execs in work and therefore buying perfoemance cars and paying for hookers - thus spreading the cash around) rather than blagging government funds to advertise the next government.

Weird.

Its fairly common in Western countries for limits and disclosure of election funding to be required. It does make sense. Imagine the McJim Party producing beautiful advertising promising to build a nuclear reactor if elected. Really persuasive stuff which captures the electorates imagination.

Later we learn that PM McJim was paid US$30 million by General Electric which by good luck also won the new reactor contract for $5 billion....:doh:

Don't you think people might want to know that....?
Bu hey, I'd vote fo ya anyway. And where's that bridge you were going to deliver to me...?? :eek:

[McJim]

Its fairly common in Western countries for limits and disclosure of election funding to be required. It does make sense. Imagine the McJim Party producing beautiful advertising promising to build a nuclear reactor if elected. Really persuasive stuff which captures the electorates imagination.

Later we learn that PM McJim was paid US$30 million by General Electric which by good luck also won the new reactor contract for $5 billion....:doh:

Don't you think people might want to know that....?
Bu hey, I'd vote fo ya anyway. And where's that bridge you were going to deliver to me...?? :eek:

Man with most money buys most votes - seems like perfect capitalist democracy in action to me. Isn't that how it works in the states? :rofl:

But yes - by all means have transparency of the sources but why bother limiting the expenditure?