The regulation of electoral funding in New Zealand: what are the big issues?

1. The regulation of electoral funding in New Zealand: what are the big issues? Assoc. Prof. Andrew Geddis, Faculty of Law, University of Otago

2. The Issues Paper • It represents a distinct improvement on 2007’s reform attempt. • Will it achieve its purpose? • Public attention? • Preference aggregation vs. deliberation? • Issue by issue focus vs. system analysis? • Cherry-picking of responses?

3. Issue One: Donations • Likely to be support for the general principle of transparency of “large donations”. • Devil will lie in the details: • Definition of “donations”. • Threshold for disclosure (what is “large”?). • Problem of evasion of thresholds. • How to capture “disguised donations”. • Query further limits on donations? • Query further forms of financial disclosure?

4. Issue Two: State funding • Likely to be significant opposition to this in principle. • Query whether politically achievable in the current fiscal climate? • Without state funding, what other methods of regulation are taken off the table (see questions 2.31-2.33).

5. What might State Funding Cost? • Dollars for votes model. • 2% or 1 seat threshold. • $2 for 0-10%; $1.50 for 10-20%; $1 for 20-30%. • National & Labour = $1,060,439 • Green = $315,226 • NZ First = $190,712 • ACT = $170,992 • Maori = $111,960 • Progressives = $42,482 • United Future = $41,000 • Total = $2,993,250

6. Issue Three: Parliamentary funding • Issues paper simply asks: “Are the rules sufficiently clear the Parliamentary Service funding cannot be used for election expenses? If not, what do you think would make the rules clearer?” • Appears that levels of parliamentary funding (over $40 million) are off limits for discussion. • Is it ever possible to tell “election expenses” from “parliamentary purposes” in this context? • Why not just make them OIA-able?

7. Issue Four: Broadcasting • No-one is particularly happy with the present method of allocating broadcast time and money. • Why a separate limit for broadcast spending? • Why give money just for broadcast spending? • Current allocation is $3.211 million

8. Allocation of broadcasting resource in 2008: • National & Labour = $1 million • Greens, Māori, NZ First = $248,889 • ACT, Progressive, U.F. = $103,704 • All others = $10,370 • Query: why not just give this as direct “dollar per vote” public funding?

9. Issue Five: Primary participant spending • Political parties’ limits seem OK. • Need to be inflation indexed • Will need to be raised if broadcast regime is changed. • Candidate limits seem too low. • Move to a $ per square kilometer system (cf Canada)? • Need for evidence based policy here.

10. Issue Six: “Third party” spending • Given the EFA experience, this will be difficult to deal with. • Note current limits (since 1995): • Printed advertising promoting parties or candidates must get their approval; • Printed advertising “relating to an election” must carry name and address; • Limits apply at all times.

11. Why go beyond this? • Why should parties/candidates face spending limits and not other participants? • “Co-ordination” allows end-runs around party/candidate spending limits. • Present form of regulation requires negative/attack advertising. • How to go beyond this is the real problem … better to leave alone? • Note how many of the complaints made under the EFA would still be unlawful!