Comments on NZ bill
The NZ Herald writes that the maintanence of high thresholds for anonymous donations ($10,000) is unjustified, and provides little gain to donors, that the limits on spending benefit Labour, and that third parties or independent entities are losers in restrictions on their expenditures:
The bill aims to control election finance through limits on permissible spending rather than contributions. Parties will be able to spend no more than $1 million on their election campaign and the limits will apply from the beginning of the election year. That seems a needlessly long period which will further muddy the boundaries between public information and campaigning. That will favour the Government as much as the tolerance of secret donations will favour National.
Prime Minister Clark states that the anonymous donations may be dealt with separately, but will not be prohibited unless there is greater funding from the state. Why would she say this when the opposition National Party are the primary beneficiaries of the anonymous donations (according to the NZ Herald piece)? I dont know enough about NZ politics or campaign finance to answer, but one guess may be that Labour’s money would dry up more than National’s with such a restriction - businesses, etc., who ordinarily support National may continue to do so even if it is required to be public, but the funds that anonymously support Labour may simply disappear if required to be public.
The bill is currently under consideration in the justice and electoral select committee. “The committee has been expanded to ensure that every political party is represented,” reports Radio New Zealand.