Frankly, the National Party Electoral Finance billboards are such a piss-poor piece of political campaigning that they’re not worth critiquing in their own right (especially when The Standard has already saidall that needs to be). I’m more interested in the cost of the campaign. Organiser David Farrar says:
“The three sites combined cost $7,000 for a month’s rental. There are some production costs on top of that.”
Of course, that’s just misdirection.
First, it’s unlikely the billboards will be up for only a month (or if they will be, Farrar picked the worst time to put up billboards in the big cities - when everyone is at the beach) so the cost of siting will be more than $7,000.
Second, it’s the production costs that are the biggie. I know that the posters are incredibly amateur in their design and wouldn’t have cost a lot but the physical billboard posters are expensive to have made and installed - that costs serious cash.
So, where did the money come from?
Farrar says “The Free Speech Coalition has had donations from scores of New Zealanders” but that’s just more misdirection, he doesn’t claim the donations paid for the billboards, nor could they of.
I went to the Kill the Bill website (I feel so dirty) and totalled up the donations on their list (the ’scores’ of donors are in fact 61 individuals, including that champion of electoral transparency, Don Brash, and a role-call of National’s money-men: R Kerr, Friedlander, Myers - by comparison, this site gets over a hundred visitors an hour).
Kill the Bill has dawn in $6755 from those donors. Even if it put all that money into the billboard campaign, which it can’t have done because it has other costs (like printing those t-shirts that no-one bought), there’s not nearly enough to cover the costs. The cost of this campaign has been met by some source that Farrar doesn’t want to reveal.
So, Mr Farrar, who are your secret backers?
PS. I see National’s billboard campaign has already hit a serious snag. One of the billboards had to be taken down because it displayed a political message on school grounds - either this is a canny move by campaign organiser David Farrar to get more publicity or more of his legendary incompetence at work. I’m betting the latter.
Tags: national, Farrar, Free Speech Coalition
December 19, 2007 at 3:44 pm
What is it with the lefts rabid obsession with how these right wing advocate groups are getting their money? Its THEIR OWN MONEY for gods sake, who cares? I would be much more pissed off if for example they were stealing the money from say the taxpayer. Then again the left does have some sort of unsorted issue with private ownership, to them taking the money from the public is better in principal then recieving it from a volintery donar.
They havent even broken the EFB (yet) despite its harsh rules so whats the issue?
December 19, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Honestly these two most recent posts condemning the campaign which is well within its rights have led me even more to believe that the main aim of this bill is to shut down opposition to the government, you seem to have serious issues with anyone who dears to critisize Labour.
If this is not the case then you will of course be applying the same scrutiny to the unions when they launch their campaign…
December 19, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I’m criticising the campaign because its crappy and I don’t agree with the message - and i’m well within my rights to criticise a campaign whose message I don’t agree with.
I’m not, repeat not, saying that the campaign should not be allowed. It should be and is legal , its just crappy and wrong.
And the fact that there’s secret money behind this campaign, once again has me concerned about who supports National and in whose interests National would govern. The fact that they wnat to keep it secret suggests they are not people that the new zealand public would feel comfortable having an influence over their elections.
December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm
“And the fact that there’s secret money behind this campaign, once again has me concerned about who supports National and in whose interests National would govern.”
So Free Speech Coilition=National? Thats a long bow.
“The fact that they wnat to keep it secret suggests they are not people that the new zealand public would feel comfortable having an influence over their elections.”
Labour gets anonymous donations too. This law hardly bans them at all, of course that would not have been in the interests of the Labour Party. Anonymous donations remain legal under this law so perhaps you should be critisizing the Labour party for that not National or its allies for doing something perfectly legal.
December 19, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Nnickc - this has been done to death over the last few months.
The Free Speech Coalition is a National party organisation - its run by national party staffer David Farrar and Wahleoil/Slater, who’s son of a National Party President and a life-long Nat activist. It receives funding from the same people whom the Hollow Men revealed secretly fund National.
Labour did recieve some anonymous donations in 2005 - less than 33% of their declared donations. National received $1.8 million in anonymous donations, nearly all their donations.
No, small anonymous doantions are not illegal, nor should all of them be - its large sercet money that’s the problem
December 19, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Hey Wat - I just had a look at the standard and it looks like some of your questions about prices have been answered: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=899
December 19, 2007 at 5:03 pm
DPF has said that a billboard will go up on the “corner of Carbine Road and the South-Eastern Highway”.
Guess what school is just a street away from there - Destiny School:
http://img108.mytextgraphics.com/photolava/2007/12/18/farrahdestiny-48vpc8qkc.jpg
December 19, 2007 at 5:23 pm
what the hell were they drinking when they decided to run with this?
I thought the aim of advertising was to grow support for your campaign, not alienate people.
Though they are proving that the EFB was needless, as it seems those with money to burn on third party election campaigning have no sense whatsoever.
[Zos says: Mike - Love your work. Now you've shown up, I've tagged your blog into our heroes and homies section. You're forever stained by having us love your work.]
December 19, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Who are Labour’s secret backers?
Why was the Owen Glenn clause inserted into the EFB?
December 19, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Bigbruv I think the whole fuss about ‘big money’ is just a really bad case of envy from the Labour party. The thing is that even though they wish they did, they have no big backers. Mainly because anyone who is economically successful or knows how to be successful avoids Labours policies like the plague. Thats why they stole so much money from the taxpayer. Thats why they have all these exeptions for the Unions in the EFA. Thats why they have the Owen Glen clause because this bill is all about shuting down ways Labour can get money while raising all the money they can get.
December 19, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“about shuting down ways Labour can get money”
should read
“about shuting down ways National can get money”
December 19, 2007 at 7:23 pm
Not singling you out in particular nnickc, but everyone who isn’t using it already should check out Firefox. Grab the British or Australian versions and it’ll spellcheck your posts for you as you write them.
http://www.getfirefox.com/
It’s like a cheat code for looking like a pro commenter.
December 19, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Who are Labour’s secret backers?
Why was the Owen Glenn clause inserted into the EFB?
Owen Glenn is not a secret backer. His donation of $300,000 was disclosed to the Electoral Commission last election and his address was given as 73A Bay St, Double Bay, Sydney, Australia.
The same can’t be said for National. Who exactly are the Waitemata Trust, who gave National $1,254,845 last election? What about the Ruahine Trust? Or the Jones Young Trust? Or…
December 19, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Bruv, here’s the link to save us time in future:
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
December 19, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I can tell you who did not pay for these bill boards……. The tax payer.
The EFB is all about Labour being broke, very few members, giving very little has brought us to the precipice.
December 19, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Tane.. you said…
tane Says:
December 19, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Who are Labour’s secret backers?
Why was the Owen Glenn clause inserted into the EFB?
Owen Glenn is not a secret backer. His donation of $300,000 was disclosed to the Electoral Commission last election and his address was given as 73A Bay St, Double Bay, Sydney, Australia.
The same can’t be said for National. Who exactly are the Waitemata Trust, who gave National $1,254,845 last election? What about the Ruahine Trust? Or the Jones Young Trust? Or…
Was it Owen Glen who offered 250k cash to buy the maori party’s allegiance as well… An offer they rejected.
December 19, 2007 at 9:54 pm
“Owen Glenn is not a secret backer. His donation of $300,000 was disclosed to the Electoral Commission last election”
Well that pretty much explains why they inserted the Owen Glen clause.
December 19, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Bigbruv I think the whole fuss about ‘big money’ is just a really bad case of envy from the Labour party.
That was an interesting little insight into your world nnickc. Reminds me why I joined Labour in the first place. Cheers for that!
December 19, 2007 at 11:38 pm
“Kill the Bill has dawn in $6755 from those donors”
Can the OP even add? according to http://www.killthebill.org.nz/files/KtB_Donations_2007_11_03.pdf
the amount donated is over twice the figure quoted. Either Wat Tyler works for the reserve banks forcasting dept or is deliberatly telling porkies
December 20, 2007 at 8:14 am
Um, roballfrey - you may not have deducted the $10K that was returned to Boscowen and friend.
December 20, 2007 at 9:03 am
“That was an interesting little insight into your world nnickc. Reminds me why I joined Labour in the first place. Cheers for that!”
Really, was your fanatasism wavering? For your information r0b I was deliberatly going over the top with that comment. It was more of a joke then anything.
December 20, 2007 at 9:07 am
“It was more of a joke then anything.”
Uh huh.
December 20, 2007 at 9:25 am
roballfrey - its not so much that I can’t add as you can’t read.
December 20, 2007 at 9:41 am
I’m not sure why I’m giving DPF and the Nats free advice, but … what the hell, it’s the season of goodwill. Have this one on me.
Here’s why this kind of campaign doesn’t work. The target audience don’t believe it. (They may not like the gov’t, they may want to change the gov’t, but they don’t believe it’s corrupt).
“They” doesn’t mean the lefties: “They” are National voters.
A Morgan poll out today finds that:
48.5% of National supporters believe politicians behave unethically
41% of National supporters say politicians are dishonest
(note: politicians in general, not government)
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4261/
The numbers for NZ as a whole are lower. But the point is: of those who WANT to vote National, the majority do not think the way the Kiwiblog crowd does.
Every time they scream “corrupt Liarbour diktator Klark”, they move further away from the people they need. They might care to think about that.
(Free advice ends, we now return you to the shouting)
December 20, 2007 at 9:44 am
[...] arrogant, and stupid. Frankly, it’s not a good look and I wonder if the campaign’s hollow men backers couldn’t have arranged a better [...]
December 20, 2007 at 10:27 am
“The Owen Glenn clause” - so you’re all for banning New Zealand citizens for making donations to a political party of their choosing, nnickc?
I know, I know, hasn’t lived in NZ for many years - but how do you make that work?? And you accuse the left of supressing democracy?
December 20, 2007 at 10:28 am
[...] declares just under $7000 in donations, implies this is cost of campaign, actually it’s misdirection: most of that money has gone on other costs. Irish Bill costs campaign at around $11500 in [...]
December 20, 2007 at 5:59 pm
fp,
I pointed exactly the same fact to NickC just a few days ago. After all if Owen Glen as an NZ national can vote in our elections, on what possible grounds could you bar him from donating to the Party of his choice? (And they accuse Labour of being “anti-democratic”!!)
But NickC ignores this and repeats this “Owen Glen clause” nonsense. This raises some alternative possibilities:
1. He really cannot read.
2. He can read, he understood the point, but choose to ignore it because it didn’t suit his purposes.
3. His real purpose has nothing to do with debating the issues, but to perpetuate misdirection and scaremongering.
4. He thinks he is being funny.
December 20, 2007 at 8:25 pm
[...] you won’t find much in the msm, there’s been plenty of myth busting thanks to Kiwiblogblog, including some interesting observations about Mr Fake Democracy David Farrar here and here. [...]
December 20, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Fact….Labour wanted to ban overseas donations until they realised that would exclude the money they receive from Owen Glen.
Therefore it is right to call it the “Owen Glen clause”
What part of the truth do you chaps have a problem with?
December 20, 2007 at 8:48 pm
BB,
Unless you can provide some hard info to the contrary I have to assume that are conflating these two aspects of “overseas donations”.
1. Most nations ban political donors from overseas. There is nothing remarkable about this.
2. However it would be quite peculiar to ban donations from overseas nationals who are also eligible to vote in your elections.
What part of this simple logic are you struggling with?
December 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm
red
What part of ….Labour were going to introduce legislation that would have stopped Owen Glen donating to the Labour party…do you not understand?
It was only when the Nat’s pointed this out that the Owen Glen clause was inserted.
I know you struggle with the truth but give a crack some time, you might even see that your party and your govt are corrupt.
December 20, 2007 at 9:08 pm
right so you don’t have any evidence then BB, do you?
good on you though for still trying to defend the rights of the wealthy to manipulate elections, your bosses will be pleased with your tenacity.
December 20, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Sure do, Annette King admitted this in the house.
December 20, 2007 at 9:31 pm
At this point you either make a link to an authoratative original source, or we have to assume you are either making stuff up, or misrepresenting what Annette King said.
January 16, 2008 at 5:06 pm
[...] Free Speech Coalition launched billboards that a) were placed where they were not permitted by the property owner b) were so obscure that most people didn’t have any idea what they were about c) looked, to those [...]
April 4, 2008 at 4:08 pm
[...] he has failed time and again: with marches that only a few rich, old businessmen turn up to, with billboards that look like a 15 year old made them, and now with a pathetic attempt to silence 50,000 New [...]