On one level. New Zealand First has been the agent of its own misfortune. The
New Zealand First Foundation handling the donations at the centre of the Serious Fraud Office investigation was
reportedly (a) authorised by the NZF party’s board and (b)the money was apparently used to finance the party’s
activities. Yet the disclosure trail remained opaque. According to its critics, NZF can’t have it both ways : it can’t
claim that the foundation and the party were entirely separate legal entities, and then go to court to try and block the
SFO from releasing its findings because of the likely impact on the party’s electoral fortunes.
Hmm. That criticism doesn’t really stack up. Surely the innocent-until-proven-guilty can still take steps to mitigate
the reputational harm arising from an allegation, especially when that allegation is being levelled at a time likely to
inflict major damage. It was only during the course of the court action mounted by NZF that the SFO agreed to include in its findings a passage exonerating sitting NZF MPs, party members and staff of any wrongdoing.
As for the criminal charges laid of “obtaining by deception” the SFO can’t have it both ways, either. When this case
finally comes to court sometime in 2021 or beyond, the more closely the SFO demonstrates that the New Zealand Foundation
and the New Zealand First political party are entwined, the less compelling the “deception” being alleged would appear
to be. Who exactly was being “deceived” here?
Reportedly, the donors included some of the richest people in New Zealand. One doubts that such people would be
thunderstruck to learn that the money they had donated was used to further the interests of the New Zealand First
political party. Just a hunch : but my guess would be that the donors would have regarded this money-go-round as a
necessary (and arguably legal) way of not being constrained by the stated limits on political donations. Such donors
hire tax lawyers to find similarly inventive (legal) ways of managing their personal and business finances. In sum, the
alleged offences look more like violations of the Electoral Act than the Crimes Act. But that’s an argument for another
day.The Timing
It is being argued that the SFO needed to announce its findings at this time, so that voters would be able to cast a
fully informed choice once early voting begins on Saturday, and well before election day on October 17. This isn’t an
entirely compelling argument. Now, there is always a chance that the SFO staff finished up their work and laid down
their fountain pens only last week. In which case, this would still have been after the original September 19 election date. The charges were not filed until September 23. So it seems only fortuitous
that voters are now being informed beforehand, thanks to the election delay.
Otherwise, the timing of the SFO’s release of its findings - landing just as the election campaign heads into the final
stretch – seems extraordinary. It is difficult to imagine that the SFO would make a similar call with respect to either
of the two major parties, at a similarly crucial tipping point in the election campaign.
It is not as if the SFO is contributing to an ongoing discussion about the adequacy of our laws on political donations.
During this election campaign there had been no discussion whatsoever of how fit-for-purpose our current rules on
political donations may be. The issue did not surface until now - despite a former National MP and three former National
Party donors facing criminal charges next year. An SFO investigation into Labour Party donations and into the donations
to mayoral campaigns in Auckland and Christchurch are also under way. None of this rated a mention in the first leaders
debate. Ensuring that the voters are fully informed on such important matters seems to be a pretty random and highly
selective process.
In sum, the media, political leaders and the general public are not currently engaged in a wide-ranging debate about the
flawed nature of the laws governing political donations. We’re talking only about how these rules may or may not have
been manipulated by New Zealand First. No wonder NZF leader Winston Peters feels aggrieved. He has likened the situation
to FBI director James Comey’s intrusion into the 2016 US election campaign, when Comey announced a renewed FBI
investigation into the email activities of Hillary Clinton.
As with Peters, the Comey intrusion mainly served to inflame pre-existing negative perceptions of Clinton, over
activities that were common practice across the political spectrum. (So much so that even after the Clinton affair,
using private emails for official business has been routine behavior by at least eight senior members of the Trump administration, without any repercussions. ).
If in fact, we seriously wish to fix up our inadequate rules on the packaging of political donations, the problem is
obvious. The ceiling of $15,000 per donation before public disclosure becomes mandatory has been set too high. It
practically invites parties and their donors to split up even bigger donations into multiple smaller packages that can
safely (and legally) sail in under the radar.
Currently, the only game in town that’s attempting to address this situation would appear to be the Strengthening
Democracy Bill being put forward by Greens MP Golriz Gharahman. Her Bill’s measures include (a) a full ban on overseas
donations (b) disclosure requirements for all donations over $1,000 to a candidate or a party and (c) a prohibition on
one person donating over $35,000 a year to a party or a candidate. As Gharahman says ::
“Given that three major parties have had recent investigations into political donations, we have learnt that our system
is not transparent enough and as a result, New Zealanders are turning away from politics. No one should be wondering who
is making big donations to political parties – and we need system change to fix that.”
Unfortunately, systemic change isn’t on the cards. Instead, the debate continues to focus exclusively on what those
close to New Zealand First did, or didn’t, do.Trump vs Biden
Unlike George Washington, Donald Trump seems incapable of telling the truth. The fact checking deficit is going to be a problem for viewers of this afternoon’s televised debate between Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden:
Biden, in fact, said last month, “I’m gonna be a fact-checker on the floor while I’m debating him.” If that indeed represents Biden’s debate
strategy, it would be a task worthy of Sisyphus. CNN’s Daniel Dale, who obsessively tracks the president’s false claims,
documented 25 misstatements during a recent Trump rally in Milwaukee. And in July, the Washington Post announced that, according to its
calculations, Trump had made more than 20,000 “false and misleading claims“ since he took office.
Unfortunately, the debate format doesn’t allow the participants sufficient time to police and correct each other’s
statements:
In 120 seconds, even a candidate with the speaking style of an old-time tobacco auctioneer could not both answer the
moderator’s question and offer a detailed critique of the factual errors in his opponent’s prior response.
More worryingly, the people putting on the debate don’t seem to regard fact-checking as being part of their job, either
:
The Commission on Presidential Debates does not regard fact-checking as part of its mandate. Frank Fahrenkopf, a co-chair of the commission, said recently, “There are a lot of fact-checkers, and the minute the debate is over, you
can go on any network, you can pick up your paper the next morning, and they’re all going to be there. It’s not our job
to be the fact-checker. It’s our job to put on the debate.” This approach makes fact-checkers the political equivalent
of street cleaners, sweeping up the debris after a debate.
Good luck then, this afternoon. Trump has debased political debate (and divided Americans against each other) to the
point when even this week’s NYT revelations about his tax returns and debt liabilities are being dismissed by Trump as
partisan politicking. He will allow facts to exist only insofar as they serve to advance his own personal interests.Tyler Childers explains himself
At the foot of a column last week, I included a clip of Tyler Childers’ remarkable protest song “Long Violent History…”
Basically, the song uses old school Appalachian fiddle music to appeal across racial lines – by asking the white rural
majority to understand and to even empathise with why the Black Lives Matter movement exists. Well, Childers has now
filmed a brief clip explaining his motivation for writing the song, and for making it the centrepiece ( and only vocal
track) on the album on which it appears. In itself, it’s a fascinating statement: