The distancing starts

Helen Clark is already distancing herself from the Electoral Finance Bill, as if it is nothing to do with her. I mean she only chaired the Cabinet which dictated the policy for the bill and also signed off on the Bill.

I don’t think one should take a shred of comfort in vague talk about we’ll amend it at select committee. That may mean cosmestic changes only. This bill was backed by Labour. Greens, United Future and NZ First. Unless they publicly declare their position on these free speech restrictions, one should assume they will not support meaningful changes.

What comes out of select committee will probably be just before Christmas and can be rushed into law with just a few hours debate.

Helen Clark also tried to justify her totally unprincipled u-turn regarding clamping down on anonymous and trust donations, saying:

“The problem is if you’re going to totally clamp down on anonymous donations – which I’d be very happy to see – you do need some quid pros quos,” the Prime Minister said.

“Because the Labour Party isn’t led by me with a $50 million bank account.”

She said the Labour Party had support from many people on low and modest incomes and “we are not in a position to just write large personal cheques”.

This confirms that Helen Clark writes electoral law to personally suit her and the Labour Party. It is nothing to do with a fair contest. As Colin Espiner blogs:

That last comment left me somewhat breathless. Is the Prime Minister really saying that Labour is now drafting legislation specifically tailored to the wealth of the Leader of the Opposition? Her comments appear to reinforce my earlier point (see previous postings on this subject) that Labour has designed this legislation to suit itself and no one else.

Personally, I think whether or not John Key has $50 million in the bank is immaterial. The most National can spend in an election campaign is $2.4 million. If Key wants to bankroll the campaign, so what? It’s his money. He would have to think very carefully before doing so, however, since the public’s reaction would likely be negative and a donation of that size would be very difficult to conceal, even with Labour’s loose campaign finance laws.

I don’t believe Labour will have any trouble in finding $2.4 million either. Again, it has tailored the new law to make sure its donors can continue to contribute virtually without restriction.

I’ve just informed the National Party General Manager that he no longer needs to worry about fund-raising as according to Helen, John Key is going to fund the entire party. Thanks John. I wonder who is going to tell John of his kind donation.

Clark talks about how Labour gets support from people on low and modest incomes and are not in a position to just write large personal cheques. But this is nonsense. A clamp down on anon and trust donations will only affect large donors who give over $10,000 a year.

Labour only received$300,000 of anon donations last election year. It is amazing they will sell out their principles so cheaply. They spent a year campaigning against anonymous donations, and are now clinging to them purely because Helen isn’t as wealthy as John Key. How absolutely pathethic.