The Cost of Democracy

The electoral finance bill has come and gone, and once again I find myself giving my opinion now that it is largely irrelevant. But at least the smoke has now cleared… just a little.

It seems to me that there were primarily two issues at stake. Firstly, there was the issue of whether individual parties stood to benefit by the reform. Secondly, irrespective of individual parties, there was the issue of whether reform would provide a more democratic situation in New Zealand. The debate seemed to centre almost entirely on the later, but I suspect that most who participated were motivated far more by the former. I doubt, for example, that all the rhetoric about “free-speech” would have occurred if all the political parties stood to benefit equally.

But this was not the case. National and Act were always going to be hit harder; a limit of $120,000 on third party political advertising inevitably will have more of an effect on parties who have a wealthier support base. Strictly speaking, such a limit can be called “anti-free-speech” because after all, why shouldn’t wealthy people be able to spend as much money as they want trying to influence others? Many, however, would argue that a limit is more democratic, since wealth should not unduly influence the democratic process.

Labour would probably fail to sell a life-raft to a drowning man at the moment. Given The Hollow Men, the Exclusive Brethren, and decades of secret and big money donations, public support for the electoral finance bill should have been easy to muster. Perhaps this led to arrogance, and with it a failure to ensure that the process would be perceived as fair and balanced. According to United Future, neither Labour nor National were willing to work together on this issue, and it also seems bizarre that Labour left the passing of the bill so late that it needed to be rushed. A number of amendments later and arguably there is still room for improvement, but it is important to remember that the old electoral funding system was far from flawless. One legal expert described it as like “panel beaters designing intersections.”

Despite the controversy surrounding this act, we can at least take satisfaction from the fact that New Zealand has followed the lead of Britain and Canada and capped third party political advertising. The alternative would be to head towards a system in which hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each election to influence voters, and more worryingly, a system where parties make decisions about the future of our country based on who will be signing the biggest cheques at the next election. As the saying goes, “he who pays the piper calls the tune.”

To get a taste of what money can buy you just need to look to the USA. Even back in 1996 it is estimated that 2.7 billion dollars was spent on political campaigning (about twice the GDP of Sierra Leone), much coming from “special interest” donors, who obviously expected something in return. Lobby groups have apparently spent 13 billion dollars to influence politicians over the last eight years. Unsurprisingly Israel spends considerably more than Iran, and oil companies spend more than environmental groups. And don’t even consider running for president without a massive fortune behind you. So why doesn’t the US put reasonable limits on this madness? Well, that would be “anti-free-speech.”