Donor money buying access to politicians — new report
But donors say cash better for securing cocktail party invites than political power
Areport into the shady world of political donations has found many donors enjoy access to politicians in exchange for the money they give to political parties.
The authors propose strict donation caps to curb influence through donations, and taxpayer funding for political parties to ensure political parties are well-funded despite the crackdown on donations.
Money for Something, a report by Max Rashbrooke and Lisa Marriott into political donations, spoke to eight donors about their reasons for donating to political parties. Donors were granted anonymity in the report, allowing them to speak frankly.
They also spoke to MPS and party officials about their experience with donations.
Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, who had attempted to reform donations with a members’ bill, said the report should push Labour into doing more to reform donations law.
“We should all be really concerned with these findings in terms of the high-level access that money buys to politicians including prime ministers and ministers of the Crown,” she said.
“We finally have evidence that money is perverting our democracy. We need action,” Ghahraman said.
The Government has already made some donations reforms and is currently reviewing electoral laws — though this review will not consider donations. Ghahraman said it should.
All donors claimed they did not “gain influence from their donation”, but one noted that it was “probably inevitable in smaller parties that individual donors could, and would, have greater influence”.
Donors told the report donations might get them “an extra lunch or dinner — but it didn’t drive policy”.
They were also told they got “wonderful opportunities, e.g. cocktail parties”, and that there is “more opportunity to have a direct meeting, but that doesn’t mean that you will influence the decision”.
Another donor described the relatively good access they got to politicians, but did not think it amounted to special influence: “John Key lives nearby but we only talk in
generalities. Helen Clark came to my house a couple of times. David Seymour has popped in a couple of times and had a chat about life.”
Some donors believed it was unfair they could reap the rewards of donating to parties, while people with less money could not.
One donor remarked there was a “real problem with people who accumulate a lot of money supporting the systems that have allowed them to accumulate a lot of money”.
Another thought it wrong “that rich people can distort democracy”.
It was not just individuals who sought to donate to parties. Large firms also donate, either out of an altruistic belief in the democratic process, or to ensure that they were onside with the party in power.
A former Labour general secretary told the report “large firms like banks regularly donated $5000 (over $10,000 in today’s money) to both parties”.
The report also spoke to people on the other side of the divide — the MPS who got donations and spent money.
The former leader of a political party appeared to say they were comfortable with the fact donations bought influence over the political system some people did not have.
“Do I want a 19-year-old with an NCEA level one qualification having the same influence as a university professor or a successful businessman? I don’t much care if the university professor or the businessman has more influence on the political process in some kind of way than someone who has no particular experience,” they said.
One former MP who spoke to the authors said some people believed “if you have money you can pay for yourself to get into Parliament — and if you don’t have money then you shouldn’t be there.”
The report found despite donations scandals going to court, successful prosecutions were rare.
The report found there was not a massive imbalance in the number of donations received by Labour and National in small donations.
“National received more than Labour, although not by the kind of margin that might be popularly supposed,” the report said.
National was ahead of Labour by over $2 million received in donations over $15,000 from 1996 to 2019 (the figures were inflated to 2020 dollars for the sake of comparison).
In terms of donations both above and below the $15,000 threshold,
National was well ahead, out fundraising Labour by $13m in the period from 2011 to 2019.
“It could be seen as surprising that National’s greatest advantage has come from donations below, not above, the disclosure threshold. However, National is gaining especially large sums in the bracket $5000 to 15,000 — that is, relatively large donations that are well beyond what most New Zealanders could realistically afford to give, but which nonetheless remain anonymous to the public,” the report said.
One tool Labour has to match the fundraising from business is the funding it gets from affiliated unions, which have a historic relationship with Labour.
However, the report found while “virtually all” union money was donated to Labour, the party still received more money from business.
They put this down to the “financial weakness” of trade unions.
The report recommended changes to New Zealand’s donations laws to encourage greater transparency, while balancing people’s right to participate in the political process by donating money to political parties.
It recommended disclosing the identity of all people giving over $1500 to political parties and that no individual should be allowed to give more than $15,000.
The report did say that wellfunded political parties were important to train candidates and develop policy. The authors recommended using state funding to replace parties’ reliance on donations.
They proposed something called a “democracy voucher”, which citizens give state-funded vouchers to a political party of their choice. This would give parties a share of $4 million in campaign funding. They recommend funding this out of the broadcasting allocation, the state funding parties get in election year to spend on certain advertising. They also recommended tax credits, costing up to $8 million a year, provided to people donating up to $1500.