(SV*)null
interpreting the void as SamV
John Key writes,
"But New Zealanders should know that from tomorrow, millions of dollars - of their money - will be funnelled through Government departments to advertise Labour policy in election year. Meanwhile, so-called third parties can only spend $120,000."
only $120,000?! Well, crap. Looks like I'll have to clamp back my donation. Seriously, WTF?. That's a fairly sizable proportion of their total allowed budget.
I think the opponents of this bill are missing some of the point - while it does on the face of it appear to restrict free speech, we should again refer to the two meanings of free - gratis and liberty. The liberty of speech - the position you hold - is not under attack. If you are giving gratis speech - ie, speaking without spending money on it, well that's fine, too. But speech which is paid for by the ream of advertising material and by the hour of people distributing them is free in only the liberty sense. It's not gratis. That being said I think that could and should be more explicit.
I think Free Speech should be honoured by a NZ constitution, not as a right but more of an observation. Sponsored speech, well now that's a different story. Sorry, but if you run a newspaper or hold power of office somewhere, your right to call something "free speech" ends when it forms part of some kind of organised campaign. Sad as it might be, this is a necessary reaction to the outright corruption of the last election.