So, the Herald thinks that the government's Electoral Finance Bill (due back from committee any day now) is an attack on democracy. I disagree. The real "attack on democracy" comes not from the bill, but from an existing regime which allows rich parties with rich mates to ignore disclosure requirements and circumvent spending limits - effectively allowing them to sell policy and buy power.
We saw these loopholes exploited in the 2005 election, when National used a network of secret trusts to launder donations, thus preventing any public scrutiny of what donors were getting in exchange for their money. That party then used its mountain of cash to spend up large on advertising before the regulated period began, thus circumventing its spending limit. Then, when the election campaign actually began, it colluded with the Exclusive Brethren and the Fairtax lobby to have well over a million dollars spent in support of their election, over and above their official spending. This was on material designed and scripted by National, but officially published by others in a deliberate effort to circumvent the law.
No democrat can regard this situation as satisfactory. Disclosure regimes and spending limits exist for a reason: to prevent corruption and ensure political equality between citizens - to ensure, in other words, the ideal of "one person, one vote". The core provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill - an extension of the regulated period and restrictions on third party advertising - protect that ideal. And while many of the provisions of the bill are flawed, I am confident that it will emerge from select committee with those features substantially improved. The definition of "electoral advertisement" will be narrowed, third-party spending limits are likely to be more realistic, and the bar when third-party registration kicks in raised as well. Better yet, it now seems likely that we will also see a crackdown on anonymous and laundered donations. These changes will no doubt fail to satisfy the extremists who proclaim an absolute "right" of the rich to buy elections, or the National Party (whose bad faith, self-interest, and hypocrisy on this issue are self-evident) - but they will satisfy the vast majority of New Zealanders who believe in democracy and want to ensure they have an equal say in our elections.
