After months of controversy and heated opposition, the Electoral Finance Bill passed into law today. The provisions according to the summary at the NZ Herald are:
Any group or person wishing to campaign for or against a particular candidate or political party, or policies held by a party, will fall under the third-parties regime…
…will have to register if they want to spend more than NZ$12000, delegate an accounting agent who authorizes all financial activity, and face total and per candidate spending limits. Also these third party expenditures made on candidates’ and parties’ behalf are considered part of the candidates’ and parties’ spending and subject to their limits — in effect putting a total cap on all spending for/against candidates and parties in elections. Ireland has a similar regulation. The third party expenditures are also rather similar to those in the US in that they apply only to candidates/parties - expenditures on issue advertising are exempt.
No restrictions on openly made donations but identities of donors of more than $10,000 to a party, $1000 to a candidate or $5000 to a third party must be disclosed in returns.
…Anonymous donations can be made directly to a party of up to $1000 at any time.
“Transmitters” of funds - such as trusts which take donations to pass on to a party - must reveal donors of more than $1000.
Anonymous donations of more than $1000 must be made as “protected disclosure donations” - they go to the Electoral Commission to pass on to the party or candidate. The commission takes the donor’s details but must not disclose it to anyone. The donor must not reveal that they have made the donation.
The maximum amount one donor can give to a party this way is $36,000. Parties can collect a total of $240,000 in any three-year electoral cycle. Third parties can get up to $1800 from any one donor and take up to $12,000 overall.
The article does not say whether any measures are taken in order to disguise the identities of those who make “protected disclosure donations” — or secret contributions — to parties/candidates. Chile has a similar framework, modelled after the suggestions in Ackerman and Ayers’ Voting with Dollars. It does not seem that the NZ rules really encourage the use of this system — why not simply make public donations? Or give donations up to 10000, which can be given directly and yet remain anonymous? This system seems merely a means to allow anonymous contributions over the 1000 limit (but below the 36000 limit) and not really to undermine the potential influence of donors over their charities.
It is unclear whether list-tier candidates can receive donations/spend money.
The new rules affect only donations to third parties for use in election campaigning. Donations given for general purposes are not covered.
How this distinction will be made and enforced is also unclear.
…From January 1 next year, parties can spend only up to $2.4 million on electioneering - a total of $1 million for each party and $20,000 for each electoral district they stand candidates in.
The cap does not include taxpayer-funded spending by MPs as part of their normal work as MPs. There is some debate about what exactly this covers.
…After the election, parties’ financial agents must provide returns of election expenses and donations, as well as have election expenses audited.
At least the first part of this - disclosure of donations - was already required (both post-electorally and annually).
The NZ Herald has other articles on the new bill: “Small parties most vocal about bill“, “They’ve done it: 63 of our 121 MPs pass the Electoral Finance Bill“, and “Election watchdog set to pounce“