Comments on: Should political activity be further regulated?

By: Andrew Leigh

Andrew Leigh — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 02:55:54 +0000

Do you have a view on my call for blind trusts?

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:12:04 +0000

I supposed the call for spending disclosure is to use it as a hammer, just as Labor successfully (and rightfully) used the cost of government advertising disguised as information as a hammer against the Howard government.

The Coalition in opposition, without being able to call on funding instruments like Trade Unions and GetUp!, can cry poor and foul at the private money being used against them, money they cannot match. Playing the old underdog thing I guess.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 11:42:07 +0000

Adrian - The spending on government information campaigns is disclosed; I can see the point of this due to taxpayers’ funds being involved. But what will disclosure on GetUp! show? That they spend money on political campaigns, as intended by their donors. And that the ACTU spends money on campaigns favoured by the unions that finance them. Complusory disclosure seems pointless in these cases; or at least only a matter for their internal governance with no public policy issues involved.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:59:14 +0000

Oh and I forgot, Loughnane neatly avoided mentioning the estimated two hundred million of tax payers money Howard spent on party political advertising disguised as government information campaigns. That advertising at our expense far outstripped all other contributions combined.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:51:42 +0000

So how far does Loughnane want to take this? I’m sure he does not want to extend this oversight to right wing shock jocks like Alan Jones, and the very shrill right wing journalists like Ackerman and Albrechtsen? I’m sure their long term and considerable contribution to the Howard government and to Howard himself would count for a lot, especially that of Alan Jones who is said to garner large support for the right in NSW.

So I guess I’m asking what out of election third party support does the Liberal party want tied up in oversight or scrutiny?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 23:23:29 +0000

Andrew, another interesting post.

The Liberal High Command has totally underestimated GetUp! and I think you are doing the same, albeit to a lesser degree.

A low-level political statement does not involve TV ad campaigns, over 200,000 members on their email list and dedicated fundraising.

They’ve already had a post-election campaign strategy event and given that the Federal Director at the Liberal Party is clearly concerned enough to talk regulatory changes, I think their significance is clear.

Until the Liberal/National side of politics moves beyond web 0.5, they are going to be left further behind in a campaign sense in the years ahead.

Spiros makes a very good point however about what they will now do. It’s interesting that they decided to abandon David Hicks…now that Labor is in government.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:00:19 +0000

Spiros - I think the ACTU campaign was probably effective against the Liberals in raising the salience of IR, an issue which affects some potential Liberal voters. I’m open to argument that GetUp! was electorally relevant, but I can’t see the causal mechanism at this point. They did some IR campaigning, but it would easily have been lost against the serious money ACTU effort.

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:59:00 +0000

I notice Brian Loughnane very conviniently left out the funding of advertisements by the business lobby in favour of Workchoices.

He gave a very very one-eyed view of the election campaign, which I guess is nothing more than you can expect.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:49:22 +0000

Andrew, you may be right, but Loughnane thinks they were effective, and he should know.

The challenge will for Getup! now will be how they position themselves now the Labor Party is in government. I predict they will build bridges with the socially liberal Liberals.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 21:19:09 +0000

Spiros - It’s what they are effective at that still has me a little puzzled. As I said when they started their focus is exclusively on issues that are already orthodoxy among ‘progressive’ types. That makes more sense for the US model they are copying (MoveOn), where there is a need to get supporters out during elections. Here, it is done for them by compulsory voting. It’s all slickly done, but as I said two years ago I suspect it is more about satisfying a demand for low-effort political statement than shifting opinion more broadly.