Yep, soliciting large donations and lying and using sneaky methods to keep them secret. It's the tory way! They can't be held accountable for telling lies. Where would it end? Hilarious commies!
God forbid that National MPs should be expected to follow the rules - there'd be no way to run the country on back-room deals if that happened. How dare these uppity citizens demand accountability?
And here was me thinking Banks was running for mayor at the time, not Parliament.Len likewise came in for condemnation at the time by running a sneaky trust account and hiding his big donors that way.JC
Presumably, Banks requested that Dotcom make two $25,000 donations because there were already other anonymous $25,000 donations. Once made, Banks could argue he cannot tell the one from another. So he cannot know who made which anonymous donation. It's all very spurious stuff. But the law seems to encourage this sort of thing.
Whenever I hear John Banks speak I confess to feeling I'm listening to someone who is not that bright.
Anon @ 12:37The odds are very good that he is far brighter than you.Suggest you measure yourself against Kris Faafoi - you'll have a better chance.
All of these funding sideshows - be they on the right or the left or Parliamentary or Local Body elections - show clearly that we should have open slather on election spending. It is well proven in NZ that big money does not mean an election win.
"It is well proven in NZ that big money does not mean an election win."You should have told John Banks that before he solicited a whopping donation from Kim Dotcom and then told lies about it. That would have saved him a world of hurt.
It is well proven in NZ that big money does not mean an election win.It's also well proven that advertising doesn't guarantee the success of your product, but that isn't the same thing as saying it has no effect.
Milt, you are clearly large on this issue. So why don't you tell us all why (assuming he knew it was Dotcom) John Banks would give a toss if the NZ public knew he had had a $50,000 donation from Kim Dotcom (and I don't want any "who knows what goes on in that crazy conservative's mind" answer). Why would he feel compelled to hide it by breaking the law if necessary? After all the unions make six figure donations to the Labour party all the time and nobody except Whaleoil gives a toss.
"Why would he feel compelled to hide it by breaking the law if necessary?"You'd have to ask him, he's the one who did it. He's really fucking stupid, so perhaps that's got something to do with it.
Well, you may not want that answer, but who knows why anyone does anything? The question is whether he broke the law, not what his motives for doing it might or might not have been.Also: if you don't like the Labour Party receiving donations from unions, you don't have to vote for it. That's why the donations aren't anonymous.
TNo. that won't do I am afraid Milt. You and anon @ 7.14PM are the ones with the burden.
Like I said, the question of why someone might falsely declare a donation to be anonymous is irrelevant to the question of whether they made the false declaration or not. Speculation about other people's motives is just that, speculation.That said, the purpose of the blog is to entertain its readers, so as long as we're clear that this is idle speculation irrelevant to the question of whether he did it or not:Why would a politician conceal the fact he'd had a $50,000 donation from Kim Dotcom? For the same reason he might conceal a donation from Sky City casinos - their businesses, while legal, are things that many voters find dubious and unsavoury (taking the shirts from gamblers' backs in Sky City's case, enabling breaches of copyright in Dotcom's case). A conservative Christian like Banks might not be eager to be seen as potentially beholden to or open to influence by such people.
"You and anon @ 7.14PM are the ones with the burden."What, so unless we can divine Banks' reasons for lying he can't have told a lie? The fact is he did. Anyway, there are many reasons why he wouldn't want the voters to know he had solicited a huge donation from a convicted criminal don't you think?
Anon @ 7:17Three times now you say John Banks has lied or is lying. Please explain precisely what it is you think he has lied about.
This is showing what's wrong with politics. Being less than honest is OK as long as rules are circumvented rather than broken. Banks may well be smarter than me Adolf and I didn't say he wasn't. He just sounds flimsy and as he's got a hand in running the country perceptions are important. Anon 12.37
Do I take it you are hard pressed to now deny you have defamed Mr Banks?Just another loud mouthed leftie troll, are you?Time for you to fuck off and never return.
Piss off. Banks lied about how close his relationship was with Dotcom, and he lied when he said he couldn't remember taking a helicopter to Dotcom's mansion FFS. He also clearly instructed Dotcom on how he thought he could circumvent electoral law (with luck the courts will disagree). And Banks knew Dotcom contributed to his campaign because he rung and thanked him, yet he signed off his returns wihich did not declare the donation he himself solicited at Dotcom's mansion. That's tory integrity for you.
Bye bye Banks. F##k pollies are scum of the earth liars! Mental head case Trev Mallard talking about "clean politics. Haha these filth are ALL DIRTY!!!They ALL make me sick.Ban me Adolf cause faggot farrar and lazy blubber whale has. FFS this country is f##ked!!!
I so wanted the right to be better than the arrogant and abusive left that I hate. Adolf (mind your language)continues to miss the point - honesty and legality are not the same. This is why people squirm in these situations - it may be legal but confessing it does not alter the perception that its still wrong and you shouldn't do it.
Anon @ 11:32What a pity you didn't demand some honesty and integrity from the New Auck Times.
Dad, why should I ban you?You have not transgressed the rules of this blog.There are only two:-1..Don't abuse the blog host.2..Don't overuse obscene language.You see, you do actually have more brains than Sludge Holden.
Post a Comment