electoral finance

If the NZ Herald wants its editorials to be taken seriously, it should stop using them to mislead its readers.

While I'm waiting on my copy of Nicky Hager's Dirty Tricks to arrive so that I can join the interweb's great topic de jour, a quick cut-and-paste response to today's NZ Herald's editorial.

Is spending money on trying to affect how people vote a bad thing ... unless it's you who is doing the spending?

On my sabbatical year in Canada in 2006, I was introduced to a couple of truly great new (to me) things. One was chocolate porter as the ideal mid-winter tipple in a land of ice and snow. The second was Arrested Development, watched as a DVD box set in evening-long binge sessions. For those who've done likewise, you'll understand the reference made in this post's title.

David Cunliffe's Trust and the Dinner at Antoine's were not the same. I wish they were, but they just aren't.

There's been a bit of lefty gloating going on around the traps about Patrick Gower's interview with John Key on The Nation, in which he sought to draw an equivalence between David Cunliffe's use of a trust to receive donations for his Labour leader

Clayton Cosgrove is in trouble for this. What do you think - should he be?

The nineteenth century US Senator and Republican Party manager, Mark Hanna, purportedly once claimed "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can't remember the second."

The Electoral Finance Act is dead. Long live the Electoral Finance Act.

Cast your mind back, if you will, to late 2007/early 2008.