It isn’t wrong if it is specific to a short electioneering period, it is merely sane. Nor does it impede the public debate… as anyone with the support of a few hundred fellow partying fools can start a party. Whatever the threshold actually is. Hard to prevent some wealthy guy from hiring a party though… and you’ve put your finger on a problem that’d still need work.

However…

No other method of ensuring the public knowledge of the actual views of the actual contestants seems to be tenable. ALL of them are open to all manner of abuse and the one thing I am sick to death of is the influence of money in politics due to the amount of money it takes just to get beat. The COMPLETE abuse of this process in the US has led me to this position, there is NO place in my way of thinking, for the money to be permitted to have a voice. Individuals? sure, but during the election period the advertising has got to be controlled by the contestants alone.

respectfully
BJ

I note you lean heavily on the libel laws to ensure that freedom of speech is not abused. Again this is a resort that works for those with the money to pursue libel cases.

Did you actually read any of the material the EBs put out denigrating the Green policies at the last election? None of their poinbts were actually true - they managed a few near truths and some clever half-truths and quite a few blatent lies.

Bearing false witness and all that and they still haven’t been smitten by Gods thuderous hand yet - it could even make one start to question one’s belief in The Deity.

My questions is, if the libel laws are prooif enough against malicious mis-representation how do you explain the Brethren getting off without jail terms after their 2005 campaign for Donald Brash?

I actually want, DURING the election campaign, to muzzle every damned entity that is not actually a political party with a candidate standing for election

But you’re talking about denying people a fundamental right: if someone not on the ‘approved list’ (party with standing candidate) publishes a political article during that time, you’ll jail him (or fine him, and jail him if he doesn’t pay).

That’s just wrong, and as I’ve said, it’s slightly surreal to be having this argument with a bunch of, generally speaking, liberal people.

Not to mention the fact that it’s so open to abuse … if I wanted to advertise a party, I could start my own, and then simply campaign by encouraging people to vote for the other party. The only way to fix that would be to have the Government control who can start a party, and for what reasons ….

The power to ban political expression is a power that no-one should have (as it is an explicit violation of human rights), and one with which the Government can most certainly not be trusted.

Did you see this? I can’t find the original on Reuters but I remembered it.

“02/10/2004 09:13 AM

Reuters - One of Finland’s richest men has been fined a record 170,000 euros ($217,000) for speeding through the center of the capital, police said on Tuesday.”

and your position on this matter really does come over as though you’re wanting to muzzle any political opponents with more money than you.

No Duncan… I actually want, DURING the election campaign, to muzzle every damned entity that is not actually a political party with a candidate standing for election. I don’t give a toss who they agree or disagree with.

That is I think the difference between how we see things and how you are characterizing our position. We really don’t care if people are for, against, rich or poor… we want the election process to be managed so as to reflect as accurately as possible the opinion of the people about the policies, ideals and ideas of the parties.

Removing the noise from external entities for a little while isn’t as bad as leaving it in. Removing it as totally as I propose, is simpler than trying to limit it.

respectfully
BJ

Again, to be clear: this means you will have to throw people in jail for political expression - or fine them as alistair suggests (which of course will have a disproportionate effect on the poor, and which ignores the consequence of refusing to pay, i.e. you’re jailed).

I am just astounded that the Greens are arguing in favour of such controls. You guys are usually on the right side when it comes to such things as freedom of expression, and your position on this matter really does come over as though you’re wanting to muzzle any political opponents with more money than you.

I’d also want to see debates, real debates, between the principals.

We’re in total agreement there. Of course that’d mean the principals would have to have principles, understand them, and be able to articulate them. No chance of any of the major parties supporting the idea, then

If we all have the same amount of money to advertise that’s cool. We don’t so the difference between free speech and freedom to advertise becomes important. I am not sure how to take your comment exactly… since I don’t see ANY other way to manage an election fairly.

Basically I see the democratic election process as a contest of ideas and ideals. To the extent that it becomes anything else it is a perversion of the process. The contestants are parties, who have to present their case to the voters.

Other people cannot present the parties case to the voters, they can ONLY misrepresent those parties… by definition.

Which is why I am inclined to regard all externally generated advertising as wholly unfit for inclusion in the election campaign.

During the campaign I would restrict the parties involved to specific advertising budgets stated in terms of air time on the networks and radio. I’d also want to see debates, real debates, between the principals.

My point is that I do not want to hear what the Business Council thinks, or what the EB think or what the Unions think or what Greenpeace thinks…. I want to hear the parties themselves make their best case. Period. The election campaign should not be long or expensive under such terms. The silence around it would help to concentrate the voters on each party’s message.

Which may be an issue in terms of free-speech since it does force a short period of silence on those who are not actually running in the election, but it would also be a wonderful change from the incessant bombardment of advertising… and it has the benefit of being simple. It would be (I think) very difficult to get around. You don’t have to worry about politicians being bought with campaign contributions either.

Hmmm… we’ll argue about other stuff later maybe.

respectfully

Well that certainly is the basis of the US system, and will be the inevitable consequence in NZ if we were ever daft enough to adopt Perigo’s constitution.

On the other hand, if we take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, you are advocating that there should be no laws against buying or selling anything, including people : i.e. slavery should be legal, right?

As to “throwing people in jail for exceeding their quota of political expression” — that’s your strawman buddy, I wouldn’t touch it with an electric cattle prod. Generally hefty fines are the best response for that sort of abuse of the electoral rules.

your constitution makes for interesting reading. you talk about mobs yet you also want the right to form “private militia”. you want the right to be bigoted as well, “while the government itself shall discriminate only on the basis of merit, it shall make no law restricting the right of an individual to discriminate on any basis whatsoever.” And i presume that people’s rights to practise their religious/cultural traditions wouldn’t include anything that harmed others, yes? I see you want no weapons control as well, the right to bear arms and carry explosives, make it easy for the criminals. and no law to be allowed which requires anyone to child-proof these weapons. also an end to all drug control as well. some very interesting things which you want dunc.

somehow i dont think that your constitution will be accepted by the masses anytime soon.