Thursday, April 12, 2007

The return of the Magnificent Seven

Oh dear, the Exclusive Brethren are angry again. The Government is working on plans to reform election spending and of course it is Political Correctness Gone Mad. The Brethren have wheeled out their seven spokesmen, who have made a statement to the Herald saying the plans are "designed to further defraud the democratic rights from the political process by effectively banning third-party campaigning while leaving the door open for Clark's allies to fill her election chests".

Quite how the Government can defraud the democratic rights from the political process is a mystery to political scientists and grammarians alike. But then, the Brethren are not voting folks, nor are they varsity types. What has them rattled is the following:
Negative third-party campaigning would be counted against a party even if it did not endorse it. Any third-party campaigning would be limited to a cost of $60,000 nationally, and would require the permission of the party it endorsed. Organisations such as unions or companies would be exempt if their messages were deemed to be communicating with members.
A mere sixty grand; no wonder they are annoyed. At least they had the permission of the party they endorsed.

4 comments:

Spectator said...

One could, if one wished, suggest to the Exclusive Brethren that, if they were serious about their members' "democratic rights", then in the interests of such freedom they would do more good by actually permitting said members to vote.

harvestbird said...

But are the magnificent seven any match for the Black Seal?

Nicky Hager, in a recent forum at Concrete University, suggested that the public might be being too hard on the EBs, arguing they are a symptom rather than a cause of the problem (lack of limitations and transparency in election donations/spending/etc.). But of course, Mr. Hager is neither wholly nor solely in the business of fixing politicised fundies with a cold icy (textual) stare, nor the fun that, truth be told, this enterprise entails.

Phil said...

I would be interested in finding a published list of Brethren owned companies in NZ. I know many of my friends would prefer not to do business with them.

Cheers

Phil

Samuel said...

Ah, now I see why the Brethren are annoyed. Unions and companies are exempt if their messages are communicating to their members, whilst the Brethren would be barred from communicating to their members about their voting choi... oh wait.