Someone should tell Gareth Morgan that the evidence doesn’t support his plans

Gareth Morgan likes to tell people that he makes decisions based on evidence.

One has to wonder why it is that he keeps pouring money into his political vehicle then:

Gareth Morgan has donated $900,000 to his own party, according to the latest Electoral Commission filings on donations above $30,000.

Mr Morgan gave $500,000 to TOP on June 16. Over March, April and May he donated a total of $400,000.

TOP got 1% in a recent Colmar Brunton poll, its highest rating so far as its leader pushes attention-grabbing policies on everything from pot to water rights.

So, he’s spent a million dollars so far and only got 1%…you’d think that spending more equates to more support, but it doesn’t.

You don’t have to look very far back to see the evidence. Hillary Clinton massively outspent Donald Trump only to lose. The Act party has had millions poured into that project for no discernible gain. Kim Dotcom spent around $5 million and finished nowhere. Then there is the political spastic and serial litigant who has spent millions on politics and legal proceedings and hasn’t won yet.

ACT leader David Seymour told NBR?big donations are not necessarily a route to success, and can even be a bad look if a founder is the only one making a major contribution to a party.

His theory stacks up if?the last election was anything to go by.

The (then) Conservative Party leader Mr Craig and Internet Party founder Kim Dotcom both donated about $5 million to their own parties during the 2014 election cycle.

The Internet Party, aligned with Mana, received just 1.42% of the vote and the alliance?s only sitting MP, Mana?s Hone Harawira, lost his seat.

The Conservative Party also fell short of the 5% MMP threshold, receiving 3.97% of the list vote, and it did not come within cooee of winning an electorate.

National (47.04% of the vote) raised $2.6 million in the 2014 election cycle?while Labour (25.13%) attracted just under $1.27 million in donations ? actually slightly behind the Greens (10.70%) who pocketed $1.30 million.

The best bang-for-buck came from the headline-hogging Winston Peters, whose party raised a modest $270,000 but secured 8.66% of the vote.

Looking north, we see that Hillary Clinton’s campaign?raised?around $US1.19 billion for her US presidential election bid, or roughly double that of the Trump campaign.

Money can’t buy you love, or political power. The evidence is there before us.

Gareth Morgan’s main problem is that he leads a party but doesn’t want to be in parliament. That just makes his party a waste of space.