Today we have fairer and more transparent laws governing electoral financing than we did at the start of the week. No amount of hysteria or hyperbole will change that. The legislation is , as with all legislation in the MMP era, a compromise. It is not perfect, it will be open to some interpretation (just as previous laws governing electoral financing have been) it includes things I like and don’t like, but it has had a crack at creating a level playing field.Â
From what I have read in the New Zealand Herald and heard from the National Party, you would think we have never had any limits on spending on elections in New Zealand, that we should not have them, and no other country has them either.
Of course we have had limits, but as Andrew Geddis says in his book the real question is what is the correct balance between ‘participant freedom’ and ‘participant equality’ in the funding of elections. This piece of legislation has been about adjusting that balance to provide for more equality. As the 1986 Royal Commission said
If elections are to be fair and our demoracy is to prosper it is important that the effects of inequality are minimised.
So is the rebalancing really so unreasonable as to see old soldiers, Hitler and god knows what/who else invoked by opponents? Of course not. Â We now have some limits- on direct promotion of candidates and parties. Not on issues. Issues based advertising remains, except for the need to be upfront about who you are and how much you are spending, pretty much open slather. This is not the end of the world.
Like a lot of people there are things I would like to have seen dealt with in this debate - including the issue of public funding for political parties. I would love to see a mature debate on this issue, and perhaps the panel and citizens jury that is being set up can make a start.  Given what we have seen from opponents of this legislation I see little hope for such a debate.
For all the steam and stamping of feet from Mr Angry English and friends, one thing I did not hear much about was what National would have done to make electoral financing more transparent and fair. It would have been nice to have heard that they too wanted to create a fair and open process.  In reality, despite the rhetoric, they don’t want those things. They want to be able to make use of vast sums of money from here and overseas and not to have to let you know about where it comes from. Â
A final thought. Does anyone else think that the Herald placing a banner headline above all stories relating to the Bill that says “Democracy Under Attack” and then immediately below such a headline asking for feedback on the question “Is the Bill an attack on democracy” is just slightly leading?. Â
This is the same week when a Minister of the Crown was the subject of a private prosecution.  Democracy is still going strong- even when it delivers outcomes you just don’t like, and it will still be here when we get back from our holidays.Â
Anyway- after that long rant. Merry Christmas and festive greetings to one and all. In the New Year you will see quite a few changes on the site, which I hope you will enjoy. Â Come on back y’hear!

