A false campaign about the need for compulsory taxpayer funding has been beaten up by the Labour and Green parties, basically on the fact some members of the National Party, and perhaps others, pay for a meal and to spend time with a Cabinet minister.
These so-called Cabinet clubs are not new. In fact they have been common in Dunedin and the rest of the southern electorates for some time. Prime Minister John Key has attended them in the city. So too did former prime ministers.
The sudden furore about these fundraising opportunities has led to some naive comments from Labour and the Greens, particularly when Labour had stalls at a party conference where people could pay to have access to an MP.
The Greens were happy enough to receive funding from gym operator Phillip Mills, but have remained silent on Labour's cash for access scheme.
The Cabinet clubs, the existence of which were foolishly denied on camera by several Cabinet ministers, are often just social gatherings of people who could be called political junkies. Nothing of great import is revealed and questions, when taken, are batted away with typical political speak.
All political parties put great store on fundraising efforts. Usually, the more popular the party, the more money it attracts. Former Labour Party president Mike Williams, himself a successful businessman, was said to be the best corporate fundraiser the party has had. Since his retirement, Labour has looked increasingly shaky on donations, except from affiliated unions.
The argument got sillier when it was disclosed a fundraising opportunity in Wellington, which was legal and declared, raised $45,000 for National. It was attended by Mr Key and his chief of staff, leading Opposition politicians to start clawing at claims of official status.
There is not a democracy in the world where politicians do not turn out to fundraising functions.
New Zealand politicians are extraordinarily available to voters. School and community fetes and fairs are prime examples of MPs wandering around chatting to voters. Hearing alternative views on policy must be helpful for MPs, despite knowing any idea must be weighed with hundreds of others on any political issue.
Cash for favours, rather than access, is of course a completely different problem, perhaps best highlighted by the ‘‘cash for honours'' scandal in 2006 in the United Kingdom. National though has certainly been hit by perceptions of cash for favours in recent months, as evidenced by the Maurice Williamson and Judith Collins debacles.
In the United States, a small number of states and cities have started to use broader programmes for public financing of campaigns. One method, which its supporters call ‘‘Clean Money, Clean Elections'', gives each candidate who chooses to participate a fixed amount of money.
To qualify for this subsidy, candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding.
Candidates who choose to raise money privately rather than accept the government subsidy are subject to significant administrative burdens and legal restrictions, with the result that most candidates accept the subsidy.
Unfortunately, the rise of political activism committees (PACs) in the US has muddied the world of donations considerably.
In New Zealand, the fact political parties must raise funds from the public keeps them accessible to the very people they purport to represent. Given the distaste some New Zealanders still have for the idea of list MPs under our MMP electoral system, the use of taxpayer money to entrench existing political parties will alienate the public further from politics, divorcing MPs from voters while causing even more discomfort for the public.
Taxpayer funding of political parties must be resisted. For New Zealanders to feel part of the process, seeing political parties raising their own money, rather than relying on hard-earned taxpayer funds, is an essential part of the equation.
