Well, I didn't want to pick on anyone, but it was Keir:

Thanks for the clarification, but I have to say that Keir's much more nuanced statements didn't seemed to be saying that he opposed the idea of equal caps. It was just about the logic of raising them without…

I'm just not sure why this means I should include money given to MoveOn.org in assessing the amount of money Obama received in donations.

Which you can't do, because George Soros' $millions only come with one vote attached.

Assessing a candidates popularity based on their campaign budget/$2000 is not real…

This was compared to strapping a chicken to a table, shooting it at point-blank range with a shotgun, and concluding "shotguns kill chickens".

In order to test this, I went out into my formerly well chickened yard with my faithful 12 gauge and conducted some experiments:

– point-blank, chicken restrained…

we are all Ignorant apparently

and don't forget "venal"

Um – at least one of the McGillicuddys is currently in parliament, a party leader no less

So there is! It's not easy being green. Guess she wasn't part of the 'Great leap Backwards' movement then.

These people prefer to engage in politics in ways that do not involve handing money directly to politicians, but they still vote.

Sure.

I'm just not sure why this means I should include money given to MoveOn.org in assessing the amount of money Obama received in donations.

Graeme, I meant editorials of the major dailies around election time. In 1987 they were supportive of Labour, not surprisingly, but very rarely since.

1987 Labour were left wing?

Turns out the McGillicuddys disappeared after 1999. Sorry, I didn't notice for some reason. Must have been lack of equitable funding.

…

I don't see why you would. The amount of money donated to Greenpeace, some of which goes to the Vote for the Environment Campaign, which ranks the parties on environmental policies and tends to give the Greens the highest score isn't figured into how much they get.

Because some people…

The bar is currently set at 500 members, which is a lot harder then it sounds.

You can, however, stand as an electorate candidate for an unregistered political party, which is what I intend to do next year.

As an art project.

Could we raise the bar as to what constitutes a national party at least? You'd think that a reasonable number of paid up members would be a honest prerequisite and weed out some of the fringes (and I say that as a lifelong holder of fringe political ideas).

As much…

You don't shut people up and lock them in a corner, you let the sun shine in

Vampires flee the sun.

Speakign of which, has anyone seen Roger Douglas in daylight recently?

Could we raise the bar as to what constitutes a national party at least? You'd think that a reasonable number of paid up members would be a honest prerequisite and weed out some of the fringes (and I say that as a lifelong holder of fringe political ideas).

The bar…

You don't shut people up and lock them in a…

You forgot National Front. I'm sure we'd love to see them getting taxpayer dollars to produce election material, right...?

If Labour deserves money, then so do they. And regardless, the same spending caps should apply to each. Anything less is undemocratic and a way of distorting the outcome.

strapping the chicken.

Is that like spanking the monkey?

More like "stacking the deck".

Its a piece of jargon from the US Star Wars program, where incredibly expensive but ineffective lasers were "tested" by shooting them at point-blank range at stationary targets, which had been painted black (to increase…

The National Front have as much right to promote themselves as anyone else.

Could we raise the bar as to what constitutes a national party at least? You'd think that a reasonable number of paid up members would be a honest prerequisite and weed out some of the fringes (and…

if you are of the opinion that the Greens ought have the same allowance as the National Party, you surely have to have the opinion that the Socialist Workers'* ought get the same allowance, and the anarchists, and the Posadaists and so-on.

You forgot National Front. I'm sure we'd love…

Maybe in theory, and not in every state, as I understand the 1990 ruling allowed States to ban corporate financing...

I was talking about federal limits. I don't know enough about each individual state's system to paraphrase the 51 different systems in two lines of a comment =)

Unless you…

the best ideas should win on their own not because they have more capital behind them

...and other utopian ideals. Of course I agree, but, umm, America?
Free speech is also about who has the loudest megaphone.

This seemed apposite. Obama Assails Supreme Court Ruling On Political Advertising.

1. only…

I'd have said it was all about poll ratings in New Zealand

Doubt it – hence the discrepancy between Act's funding and poll ratings. All the fuss about third party funding would be meaningless if you were correct. Likewise your assertion that broadcast advertising does not affect votes seems untrue…

Here? I'd have said it was all about poll ratings in New Zealand. In the US fundraising is a pretty good proxy for support because:

1. only individual citizens can donate to candidates; and
2. such donations are limited to $2000.

Unless you count 527 money.

If Labour gets to spend $1 million on radio and TV advertising, everyone else should be too. Anything less is strapping the chicken.

if you are of the opinion that the Greens ought have the same allowance as the National Party, you surely have to have the opinion that the…

Money is treated as a proxy for level of support.

Here? I'd have said it was all about poll ratings in New Zealand. In the US fundraising is a pretty good proxy for support because:

1. only individual citizens can donate to candidates; and
2. such donations are limited to…

the best ideas should win on their own not because they have more capital behind them

Money is treated as a proxy for level of support. The right believes the playing field is already level, so each party ought to be able to spend as much support as they can…

Yeah who knows – maybe the public will decide that the socialist workers ideas are better than the greens, or the nats – it's a marketplace

Ah, the irony!

The New Zealand Herald – selling cluelessness as journalistic balance since (at least) 1997.

Blogging twitterers wrote my editorial for me. 140 caricatures or less.

The New Zealand Herald in particular seems to be all over the place.

The New Zealand Herald – selling cluelessness as journalistic balance since (at least) 1997.

I don't think that if the allocation & cap is inequitable it ought be replaced by a higher cap and yet not a higher allocation.

And later:

I also think that the cap and allowance should be identical, and…

There was a comment from someone a few posts up which indicated that they did. And the Greens apparently do, too. Although Rod Donald didn't

I took your word for this, until I failed to find said comment.

I have rarely read an editorial sympathetic to the left

Then you must rarely read editorials. The New Zealand Herald in particular seems to be all over the place.

I mean, requiring a registered…

I heard that once upon a time print news used to…

If on the other hand TV advertising…

So mostly…

You can see how it would.

I can see how it could, at least. It just seems weird that I've never heard anyone say they made the decision based on advertising. Even people who aren't into politics seem to have better sources of information than that. Discussions of the merits…

I'm amazed that advertising has any effect at all on the vote outcomes.

You can see how it would. You don't follow politics, but you like tax cuts for the rich. National has ads in which it promises tax cuts of a sort you like, so you vote National.

The…

It does seem important that there should be a level playing field, but seriously I'm amazed that advertising has any effect at all on the vote outcomes. What kind of supermarket products you…

Because you think it generates votes, even though it doesn't.

the tobacco industry beckons

Spend / Vote

*declared advertising (not including candidate advertising) + costs of broadcasting paid for by the Electoral Commission.

Only two parties beat the "big 5" in 2008.

Bill & Ben acheived the cheapest vote of the top 16 parties (@ $0.92 per) by being the only party on the list…

The FPP hangover of the LabNats being considered the "main" parties may slowly erode as the generations change but will likely take generations. The current finance…

"More spending helps to generate more votes, otherwise why do it?"

Like all advertising its not just about the money but the cleverness of it's application.

In fact there is quite a large variation in the effectiveness of campaign spending. Although this table shows total spend rather than broadcast only…

There is no limit on donations.

Ah, of course, should have realised, for we did just donate Auckland to Rodney Hide.:)

And I think that's a separate issue from the identity of the allocation and cap; I don't think that if the allocation & cap is inequitable it ought…

That's true, as long as the limits are not prohibitively high.

Isn't it 2 million (for donations)now? I think that's prohibitively high, and others will think it's chump change. So how high is high?

Because you think it generates votes, even though it doesn't.

If you believe that, your entire column is pointless. :)

If you are concerned about the influence money has on politics, then your solution will be found in changes to the donation laws, not lowering the spending limits of parties…

More spending helps to generate more votes, otherwise why do it?

Because you think it generates votes, even though it doesn't.

They're entitled to whatever power and influence they can generate by fair and equitable campaigning.

I'm not pushing for unlimited campaign spending limits. I want the same spending limits…

My guess is that there are people within the Green Party who fear that if parties are able to spend their own money on election broadcasting,

okaaay...

that in some future election,

You mean, like, the next and subsequent elections?..

ACT will have a lot of money,

They already have…

Or something like that.

Thinking about that perhaps also, the Greens, having once been considered radical are now looking more moderate because their core agenda has now become more moderate (climate change, sustainability) and their "people over profit" belief is actually sinking in to the uneasy swing voters?Plus Act would…

Rules are here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/guidance/ppbrules/ ... basically, all "major parties" get one broadcast each at the time of "key events in the political calendar, such as the Queen's Speech, the Budget and party conferences."

But…

BUT there is an exception to this rule whereby the BBC and private licensees grant political parties a number of "Party Election Broadcasts" prior to each election ... which are by-and-large limited to the big parties represented in Parliament, with the larger parties getting more PEBs than smaller ones.

Yes.…

Are the greens growing because of outside influence/ confusion like the Greenpeace Organisation?

My guess is that there are people within the Green Party who fear that if parties are able to spend their own money on election broadcasting, that in some future election, ACT will have a lot of…

what I lose in infrequency, I make up for in length =)

Thanks Graeme, I thought, succinct by my standards ;)
Soo, basically it is a way to keep the smaller parties small?
Are the greens growing beause of outside influence/ confusion like the Greenpeace Organisation?

However, if I may take on your usual commentary role and raise a small technical correction, this section isn't quite right:
"Maybe the Greens will come out and say that there should be no political advertising on TV at all. Fine.…