anonymous donations

It’s John Banks’ turn to expose Kim Dotcom

Lawyers for former Epsom MP John Banks will appeal his conviction for filing a false electoral declaration today.

Banks says he has new evidence that will clear him. Read more »

Shots fired at party leader’s office

via ODT

via ODT

…the party leader being Hone Harawira. ? And, to be honest, it’s getting hardly any traction in the New Zealand media. ?If this had happened to John Key, or David Cunliffe, it would be bigger than a Moa resurrection.

“I get threatened with violence and I get death threats but when somebody starts taking shots at my office than that’s another matter altogether,” [Harawira]?said.

“It’s life-threatening and I hope the police catch the perpetrators soon.” Read more »

Bryce Edwards on electoral crimes

Did you know there is a 6 month statue of limitations on any electoral crime? ?Yeah… convenient.

There?s a lot about the Liu donations that stinks. We shouldn?t simply believe those parties and commentators that say ?It was all within the rules of the time?. It?s not clear that this was the case ? just as it?s not clear that the rules would prevent this from happening in 2014. Similarly, even if such transactions were within the rules, it?s not clear that the public shouldn?t condemn the parties for getting around the rules.

It?s also entirely feasible that the Liu donations to Labour were funnelled through a law firm trust. As Geddis points out, there was certainly one law firm trust donation made in 2007 by Papakura firm ?Palmer Theron, Solicitors? of $150,000 that could conceivably be the Liu money. But this is far from clear.

What?s more, the wine auction in question was apparently carried out in the open, and Labour would have known who the bidders were. So for the Labour Party to claim no knowledge of Liu making those successful bids seems somewhat surprising.

We can all agree that there isn?t necessarily a crime here. We can also agree that the Electoral Act?s 6-month statute of limitation means that this legislation can?t be used to trigger any investigation. So it?s not necessarily a legal problem.

Although it?s also the case that many people are suggesting that the Liu donation might not have actually ended up with the Labour Party as intended. In fact even the Labour Party is giving credence to this idea. This would be a matter under the Crimes Act. Others have pointed out that the Serious Fraud Office could still be involved.

This is why Labour are?begging?National to fess up. ?There is just so much that needs to remain hidden. ?And the longer this farce continues, and the more money accumulates under the giant question mark, the more that the Serious Fraud Office is going to have a reason to come “help out”. ? Read more »

Where’s Wally?

Credit: RNZ

Credit: RNZ

He’s got the Wally Tie, but David Cunliffe, nor his Labour Party, have a clue where the money went. ?Radio New Zealand reports

General secretary of the Labour Party Tim Barnett said the newspaper told him it was $100,000 for four bottles, not one, but even so, he does not have record of such a transaction.

He said there is still no information on the timing, the venue, or the kind of event at which the claimed payment was made and the party is at an impasse until more information is made available.

Mr Barnett says he has looked through the party’s 400 page record of election returns several times without success and has spoken to people who were were around in 2007 when the $100,000 was said to have been paid but no one can provide any information about it.

My guess is there are a number of people sweating bricks that they are going to get found out. ? Read more »

According to Cunliffe, last week was one of his better ones

The Nation interviewer Lisa Owen spoke with David Cunliffe

Lisa Owen: After the week you?ve had, could it get any worse?

David Cunliffe: Look I actually think this hasn?t been too bad a week at all. What?s happened is that support for me within my team is absolutely rock solid and I think public support has galvanised in the face of what people can see is pretty petty politics by the current government.

Let?s just take a look back at your week. I?m wondering why you would have used or inferred that people who don?t support you within your party are scabs, when it?s such an emotionally charged and derogatory term. What were you trying to do?

I made the point Lisa that particularly for the Labour movement over many decades when we?re up against very powerful forces one of the most important things, if not the most important thing that we need to do is to stick together and present a united front. And I?m very pleased that that is exactly what my team is doing and will do. And what we?re going to do now –

And did you need to remind them of that, that they needed to be united? Did you need to remind them??

And what we?re going to do now is to focus on the issues that matter to Kiwis. And that?s about their jobs, it?s about their homes and it?s about their families.

Oh, so it’s not about trips in China, cash for access or dodgy donations then? ?It’s taken Labour to be caught with their hand in the till regarding trips in China, cash for access and dodgy donations to suddenly realise that isn’t a winning strategy?

Read more »

Anonymous Labour donors are getting nervous

A lonely David Cunliffe waitsAndrew Geddis writes

… if you go back to the?financial returns?from political parties for 2007, there is listed a donation to Labour of $150,000 from “Palmer Theron, Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client” (as well as two other donations of $50,000 and $30,000 from other law firms on behalf of similarly “undisclosed clients”). For balance, you might also note that in that year National reported $40,000 in anonymous donations, as well as $513,000 from three trusts that it had been using to launder donations previously. Read more »

×