He broke the rules and won meaning other candidates that followed the rules did not become Members of Parliament. He should have to leave his role as an MP and Parliament it will teach everyone to follow the rules. Think of it this way .. if it was a test to see if he can follow the rules and also read instructions he failed or cheated. We know the extra money would have given him a big advantage over small independant people running for the seat. I think he has to go. I voted for the coalition so this is not political on my part.
Thanks for the comment, Paul. That's a firm but fair approach. If he has any integrity he'd vacate his seat, although that would trigger a by-election in NP. It's possible that he may have to appear in court at some stage, and possibly face a fine, which wouldn't look good.
I can’t see why the law should be changed just because MacLeod erred with his filing. Everyone else gets it right. People should not, in my opinion, be prevented from donating to political parties and candidates. Nor should there be limits placed on that activity beyond those that currently exist. The issue had been the lack of transparency. Voters needed to know who was donating, how much they were giving and who was receiving it. The current law addresses that. That the National Party self reported the matter, is indicative that the system is working. Just how MacLeod got it so very wrong is still not clear to me, but I am sure the Electoral Commission will look over it very closely.
Great comment, thanks Al. I agree that 'the system is working', and the law applies equally. The straw poll is going in favour of Yes, but the way my article frames it could be accused of priming reader responses!
That’s possible. I’m clearly in the minority but I may have missed something. Heh, that’s not entirely unusual for me. Will you be posting a follow up for your poll?
Hi Al. As the poll went so firmly in favour of caps on donations, I may well follow up on this. A cap doesn't prevent people from making donations; it just limits the amounts they can donate. But caps could prevent competitive fund-building and wasteful expenditure on attack-ads.
Damn, pushed no when I meant to push yes.
He broke the rules and won meaning other candidates that followed the rules did not become Members of Parliament. He should have to leave his role as an MP and Parliament it will teach everyone to follow the rules. Think of it this way .. if it was a test to see if he can follow the rules and also read instructions he failed or cheated. We know the extra money would have given him a big advantage over small independant people running for the seat. I think he has to go. I voted for the coalition so this is not political on my part.
Thanks for the comment, Paul. That's a firm but fair approach. If he has any integrity he'd vacate his seat, although that would trigger a by-election in NP. It's possible that he may have to appear in court at some stage, and possibly face a fine, which wouldn't look good.
I can’t see why the law should be changed just because MacLeod erred with his filing. Everyone else gets it right. People should not, in my opinion, be prevented from donating to political parties and candidates. Nor should there be limits placed on that activity beyond those that currently exist. The issue had been the lack of transparency. Voters needed to know who was donating, how much they were giving and who was receiving it. The current law addresses that. That the National Party self reported the matter, is indicative that the system is working. Just how MacLeod got it so very wrong is still not clear to me, but I am sure the Electoral Commission will look over it very closely.
Great comment, thanks Al. I agree that 'the system is working', and the law applies equally. The straw poll is going in favour of Yes, but the way my article frames it could be accused of priming reader responses!
That’s possible. I’m clearly in the minority but I may have missed something. Heh, that’s not entirely unusual for me. Will you be posting a follow up for your poll?
Hi Al. As the poll went so firmly in favour of caps on donations, I may well follow up on this. A cap doesn't prevent people from making donations; it just limits the amounts they can donate. But caps could prevent competitive fund-building and wasteful expenditure on attack-ads.