Wikipedia
The Electoral Finance Act 2007 is a controversial enactment regarding electoral finance law in New Zealand. The Act was introduced by the current Labour Government partly in response to the 2005 New Zealand election funding controversy, in particular "third-party" campaigns.
The proponents of the bill generally held that it was required to prevent wealthy private parties from "buying elections" via advertising campaigns or other financially costly lobbying, while the opponents considered it a serious restriction of civil liberties, and further considered that spending private money on political campaigning was a democratic right.
The Act amended numerous areas of New Zealand electoral law. Principally, and most controversially, it proposes regulation of "third party" election campaigns
Third party campaigns
The Act makes it illegal for anyone to spend more than NZ$12,000 criticising or supporting a political party or taking a position on any political matter, or more than NZ$1,000 criticising or supporting an individual member of parliament, without first registering with a state agency, the Electoral Commission.
The Act as introduced required that unregistered third parties file statutory declarations before publishing election advertisements.
The Act originally limited the spending of registered third parties on political advertising to $60,000, but this was later increased to $120,000 by the Select Committee.
The regulation of third parties also extends to their finances. The Act requires that third parties disclose all donations they receive over $5000. Anonymous donations third parties receive over this level must be given to the State.
Regulated period
The Act extends the "regulated period" for election campaigning from the current 90-day period to begin on January 1 of election year - from three months to around ten, depending on the timing of the election. This is the period within which electoral advertising must follow election rules, and the period over which the spending limits apply. This regulated period applies to individual candidates, political parties and third parties.
Controversy
The Coalition for Open Government, a group that advocates the reform of election finance law in New Zealand, opposed parts of the Act, particularly the failure of the Act to ban secret donations to political parties, given the strong financial disclosure requirements the Act placed on third parties.
The broad definition "election advertisement" came in for particular criticism. Critics, including the New Zealand Law Society, Catholic charity Caritas, and the Royal New Zealand Forest and Bird Society argued the definition will catch not just electoral speech, but almost all political speech - including things like placards at protest marches.
The parliamentary opposition, the right-wing National Party, also opposed the Act. Political commentator Matthew Hooton argued that the Bill should not proceed, and that the Minister of Justice is a "danger to democracy". On 6 October 2007, a group known as the Free Speech Coalition was formed by prominent right-wing bloggers David Farrar and Cameron Slater, and Bernard Darnton, leader of the Libertarianz Party, to oppose the Act. The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society and NORML New Zealand, and the Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand also opposed the bill.
Criticism has also been made over the process that led to the Act's introduction, which only involved discussions with the Labour Government's supporting parties, and not the Opposition.
However political commentator Chris Trotter had harsh criticism of the detractors of the Act in several opinion pieces in The Dominion Post. He wrote in the 17 August Dominion Post, "let's just take a deep breath and examine the rules that govern election spending in Britain and Canada (countries which, the last time I looked, were still counted among the world's leading democracies). In Britain, "third party" expenditure is capped at 5 per cent of the expenditure authorised for political parties in the 12 months prior to polling day.
In Canada the figure is 1 per cent, but applies only to the period of official campaigning. (Mr Burton is proposing a cap of 2.5 per cent or $60,000 for 10 months.) In both Britain and Canada, third parties are required to register with the official electoral regulators; both countries also restrict the contributions of foreign donors to third parties; and both require the identity of third party donors to be made public. That is how modern democracies conduct themselves.
But, in New Zealand, it is still acceptable (at least to the National Party) for those with the most money to have the most say."
The proponents of the bill generally held that it was required to prevent wealthy private parties from "buying elections" via advertising campaigns or other financially costly lobbying, while the opponents considered it a serious restriction of civil liberties, and further considered that spending private money on political campaigning was a democratic right.
The Act amended numerous areas of New Zealand electoral law. Principally, and most controversially, it proposes regulation of "third party" election campaigns
Third party campaigns
The Act makes it illegal for anyone to spend more than NZ$12,000 criticising or supporting a political party or taking a position on any political matter, or more than NZ$1,000 criticising or supporting an individual member of parliament, without first registering with a state agency, the Electoral Commission.
The Act as introduced required that unregistered third parties file statutory declarations before publishing election advertisements.
The Act originally limited the spending of registered third parties on political advertising to $60,000, but this was later increased to $120,000 by the Select Committee.
The regulation of third parties also extends to their finances. The Act requires that third parties disclose all donations they receive over $5000. Anonymous donations third parties receive over this level must be given to the State.
Regulated period
The Act extends the "regulated period" for election campaigning from the current 90-day period to begin on January 1 of election year - from three months to around ten, depending on the timing of the election. This is the period within which electoral advertising must follow election rules, and the period over which the spending limits apply. This regulated period applies to individual candidates, political parties and third parties.
Controversy
The Coalition for Open Government, a group that advocates the reform of election finance law in New Zealand, opposed parts of the Act, particularly the failure of the Act to ban secret donations to political parties, given the strong financial disclosure requirements the Act placed on third parties.
The broad definition "election advertisement" came in for particular criticism. Critics, including the New Zealand Law Society, Catholic charity Caritas, and the Royal New Zealand Forest and Bird Society argued the definition will catch not just electoral speech, but almost all political speech - including things like placards at protest marches.
The parliamentary opposition, the right-wing National Party, also opposed the Act. Political commentator Matthew Hooton argued that the Bill should not proceed, and that the Minister of Justice is a "danger to democracy". On 6 October 2007, a group known as the Free Speech Coalition was formed by prominent right-wing bloggers David Farrar and Cameron Slater, and Bernard Darnton, leader of the Libertarianz Party, to oppose the Act. The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society and NORML New Zealand, and the Direct Democracy Party of New Zealand also opposed the bill.
Criticism has also been made over the process that led to the Act's introduction, which only involved discussions with the Labour Government's supporting parties, and not the Opposition.
However political commentator Chris Trotter had harsh criticism of the detractors of the Act in several opinion pieces in The Dominion Post. He wrote in the 17 August Dominion Post, "let's just take a deep breath and examine the rules that govern election spending in Britain and Canada (countries which, the last time I looked, were still counted among the world's leading democracies). In Britain, "third party" expenditure is capped at 5 per cent of the expenditure authorised for political parties in the 12 months prior to polling day.
In Canada the figure is 1 per cent, but applies only to the period of official campaigning. (Mr Burton is proposing a cap of 2.5 per cent or $60,000 for 10 months.) In both Britain and Canada, third parties are required to register with the official electoral regulators; both countries also restrict the contributions of foreign donors to third parties; and both require the identity of third party donors to be made public. That is how modern democracies conduct themselves.
But, in New Zealand, it is still acceptable (at least to the National Party) for those with the most money to have the most say."
So do you think this Act is a good thing or not? Also, what are the laws regarding this in the US?
