spinofflive
Getty Images
Getty Images

OPINIONPoliticsMarch 5, 2020

A novel way to fix our broken political donations system: flood the market

Getty Images
Getty Images

All this week on The Spinoff, a series of pieces examine the crisis in our electoral funding rules. How did we get here? How might we fix it? Today, Elisha Watson proposes a completely different way to approach the problem, via ‘democracy dollars’.

This series is made possible thanks to Spinoff Members. Join Members to support more of this work.

Political donations are getting quite a bad rap at the moment. With a host of politicians under the spotlight, pundits do their usual chest beating, demanding increasing transparency (lowering the threshold for donations that are anonymous) or implementing a cap on political donations (at the moment, people can donate unlimited amounts to political parties).

The hydraulic theory of money, pioneered by academics Samuel Issacharroff and Pamela Karlan, suggests that this might not be such a good idea. Any clever person seeking influence through money will simply redirect their dollars elsewhere to another point of influence that is currently unregulated – people will then grow outraged about this, new regulations flow, and then the dollars flow to the next influence point, and so on.

One option is simply stop fighting – but instead of giving up, do exactly the opposite. Flood the market (in this case the market for political donations) with dollars so that even if rich people did make donations in search of influence, it wouldn’t even matter because politicians would be swimming in a proverbial pool of money. This idea was fleshed out in Yale law professors Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres’ book Voting with Dollars in terms of American political donations, and is worthy of consideration here in New Zealand.

Most people would cringe at this idea, fearful of the American gladiatorial style elections, with political ads beaming out of every glowing surface 24/7 in the year leading up to voting day. But there is cause to believe that Kiwis would benefit from having more political advertising in the lead up to elections; it increases our knowledge about each party’s policies, and about the issues of the day generally. Many people have no idea about the wealth of policies that each party champions, let alone their prior track record dealing with issues that claim to be passionate about – all of this would be brought to light with more political advertising pre-election, not less.

But who would fund this flush of cash? Surely we’re trying to get rid of the plutocrats out of the political system, not empowering them further? That’s where Ackerman and Ayres’ idea of “Democracy Dollars” comes in – dish out funding to political parties and politicians by giving every citizen a special type of currency, that they can spend in the run up to an election to support and fund their favourite political party.

There are loads of different ways this could be implemented within NZ – for example by giving every registered voter a “gift card” that could be cashed in on political parties’ websites. To make sure that politicians don’t bribe people to transfer them the funds while they’re standing over their shoulder (“I’ll give you $10 cash if you give $20 of your democracy dollars to us”), the democracy dollars would be revocable within three days (“Haha! You’ve given me $10 and now I’ve revoked my $20 democracy dollars”). Much like paying off a mortgage, a democracy dollar is more valuable the further out from the election it’s donated, leading to ongoing engagement with communities from day one of the electoral cycle.

If we believe in “one person one vote”, we should also be aghast at the idea that a few wealthy people can shape the debate in the lead up to the election, by either funding political parties that didn’t really have a hope (hello Kim Dotcom and Gareth Morgan) or, in an even more shocking state of affairs, unfairly advantaging parties that go on to win even more votes that they otherwise would have on the back of a few juicy donations from bigwigs or large corporates. These large donors also have outsized influence not just in terms of jacking up their preferred party’s chances of success through funding advertising, but also because it leaves open the possibility of a politician knowing exactly to whom they owe a favour when the ballot goes their way. It leaves open the suspicion of politics not for the people, but for the funder.

Democracy Dollars would be an interesting way to enliven our democracy and prevent economic inequality becoming political inequality. This would let the many, not just the few, experience the empowering feeling of voting not just at the ballot box, but also with their wallets.

Keep going!
Simon Bridges at Parliament (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Simon Bridges at Parliament (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

OPINIONPoliticsMarch 4, 2020

Some advice for Simon Bridges on being responsible in a health emergency

Simon Bridges at Parliament (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)
Simon Bridges at Parliament (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

It is the National Party leader’s job to oppose the government. But as a second case of Covid-19 in New Zealand is confirmed, he should tone down the anecdotal criticisms, and rein in MPs explicitly urging people to panic-buy, writes Siouxsie Wiles, an associate professor in molecular medicine and pathology.

Dear Simon

I do understand that you lead the Opposition. I get that it’s your job to hold the government to account, and that this is an election year. Of course you and your caucus are keen to score points against the government wherever you can. But the reality is, you don’t actually have to oppose everything it does. Sometimes, such as in the case of a public health emergency, it might be worth putting the kneejerk response on hold.

I was really disappointed to hear you get stuck into the official response to the coronavirus outbreak and the testing regime in comments relying on anecdotal feedback.

And when I heard your colleague David Bennett, MP for Hamilton East, telling the listeners of Hamilton’s local radio station FreeFM that the government had “dropped the ball, big-time and put New Zealanders’ safety at risk”, and that people “should be out there panic-buying”, well, then I started to see red.

I can’t quite believe I need to tell you this, but during a serious outbreak of a new infectious disease, the last thing we need is for our elected representatives to be undermining the important messages coming from the government, scientists, and public health officials.

For example, the message I have been sharing with the public is that we shouldn’t be panic buying and hoarding. That leads to shortages. And shortages mean instead of everyone having what they need, some of the most vulnerable people in our communities will be left with nothing. Is that what the National Party wants? Surely not. Likewise, does Mr Bennett know more about this than I do? I’m going to take a wild stab in the dark here and say that, with a degree in Commerce and Law, and previous portfolios in Veterans’ Affairs and Racing, he does not.

Now I know all our favourite disaster books, movies, and shows might tell us that the way to deal with a situation like this is to grab some weapons, batten down the hatches, and protect our resources from everyone around us. But, in fact, as most people recognise, in the real world the opposite is true. The communities that survive disasters the best are those that work together to share their resources and make sure no one is left out in the cold.

This is one of those times. Without the surest of evidence, it is downright irresponsible during an outbreak such as this to undermine public confidence in the official response. Because when people are scared and panic, they don’t respond well to difficult situations. And this could get very difficult. Rest assured, the government is being advised by a team of infectious diseases and public health experts who know their shit, are monitoring what’s happening around the around, and adjusting their advice as needed.

It was encouraging to hear signs that you’re toning down your response this morning on RNZ – in advising people, for example, not to panic. But as we all work to ensure calm, to avoid stoking fear, and to communicate clear scientific information, I would urge you and your colleagues to bite your tongues until we are through this global emergency.

Yours sincerely

Siouxsie

But wait there's more!