Joe Hendren

[ Home ] [ Articles ] [ Blog Home ] [ Travel ] [ Links] [About Me]

Friday, December 10, 2004

Robson bites like a big fish

Perhaps in response to my posting on the 11th of November, where I questioned whether the Progressive Party's campaign for corporate tax cuts was being funded by corporates, it is possible this blog may have gained mention in Matt Robson's latest email newsletter. Of course, someone else may be asking the obvious questions too, as just like Robson's reaction, it does seem fishy.

"I'm happy to tell a snide ex-colleague that the billboard money isn't Parliamentary funding nor from corporates, but donations from Progressive members and supporters."
"Ok, Matt, but what about the three large newspaper ads in all the major papers? Those cost a lot more than a few billboards. Are you saying the Progressives got no corporate funding at all? Did any wealthy businessmen in favour of corporate tax cuts get out their personal cheque accounts to become 'Progressive party supporters'?

Might I suggest a way we can clear up this matter once and for all, that could even help the Progressive party promote its policies.

I note the Progressive party has a policy of 'full disclosure' of political donations over $250. This is a fine policy party hopped from the Alliance. Under current electoral law, parties only need to declare political donations over $10,000. This limit is clearly too high. One only needs to think of the dodgy trust scheme run by the ACT party in 1996 - this allowed ACT to receive huge donations split into anonymous $10,000 lots. For some strange reason, the rich funding the scheme did not want their name associated with the ACT party.

I call on the Progressive party to follow their own policy and make a full public declaration of all donations made to the party over $250 over the past year. It would be a principled way to promote their own policy, and it would put to rest any rumours of recent corporate cheques.

If they do so, and they are clear of corporate or corporate linked cash, I would consider a retraction and would celebrate it as a victory for parliamentary accountability. But I doubt they will, as the Progs have consistently shown they won't stand up for anything that will stand in the way of Jim's ministerial LTD.

I looked up 'snide' in the dictionary. Apparently it means 'derogatory or mocking in an indirect way'. Me? Taking the mocky out of the Progs? :)

Labels: , , ,


At 6:10 PM, Blogger span said...

meow, saucer of milk table 3! ;-)

i guess the irony is that if it were a right wing party we would just assume that it was corporate dosh and that would be the end of the matter, no scandal at all.

At 7:42 PM, Blogger Joe Hendren said...

and I thought my offer to retract on production of evidence was quite managomous.

It would appear that Jim is going after united future's soft nat muldoonist vote, so he is now chasing support on Labour's right, rather than its left.

It might not be surprising but I still think it should be considered a scandal if parties of the right find ways to hide large anonymous donations from corporates - otherwise we could easily become like the US where someone has to be a millionare before they could even consider making a presidential campaign.

If I was your legal counsel I would advise caution when casting dispirtions (or being snide) using stereotypical descriptions of cats. You may hear from Mara's lawyers again!! :)


Post a Comment

<< Home