Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: What was I thinking? What were they thinking?

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:57:16 +1200

Angus – if I understand what you're getting at, then yes, it would be legal. Those might still have to be declared as donations by the recipients, depending on my analysis above, and if the trust was being used to funnel donations, then it might have to reveal the ultimate…

Angus Robertson

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:50:16 +1200

Not worried about the rich, more people possessing much less than $120,000. An "anti-party X" trust fund could solicit individual contributions of much less money from a larger number of people and effectively control a campaign against party X without violating the EFA?

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:59:14 +1200

could it be possible to set terms for a private trust to mimic the Parliamentary Service? A trust under obligation to finance electoral advertising attacking party X could free its sponsors from the $120,000 restriction of a 3rd party.

Not really needed. There's nothing to stop any person with enough…

Angus Robertson

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:57:48 +1200

The Parliamentary Service is most directly responsible for the benefit the party has received – they're the ones actually making the payment – signing and sending the cheque to the supplier, but – under a legal obligation to do it – they've at least an argument they're not really donating…

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:52:59 +1200

Also, I'm thinking that if Parliament was making the "donation" (by passing a law requiring the Parliamentary Service to do so) then it's not something thats legally reviewable.

I wouldn't be seeking to review what Parliament has done, but rather how the recipient party has treated it. The disclosure obligations…

Rich of Observationz

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:38:05 +1200

I promise that not all future posts will be on the Electoral Finance Act.

Yes, because it's starting to look like PA has been bought by the NZ Herald :-)

Anyways, I'm not a lawyer, but when a term isn't defined in a statute, doesn't the dictionary definition cut in.…

FletcherB

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:37:41 +1200

I have no legal training, but I can read and have a brain...

I'd be interested to see the logic of anyone who think's you're wrong....

Graeme Edgeler

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:48:40 +1200

P.S. I promise that not all future posts will be on the Electoral Finance Act.

Public Address

Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:48:40 +1200

Discussion from blog post.