Oh dear, the Electoral Finance Bill is back and has been amended, but apparently not in a good way.

Go over and read David Farrar’s takes on the new bill, as he is actually backing up his claims with what the bill is saying. See his post on 19 problems still remaining (or appeared in the new version), and Discolsure Requirements.

Interestingly, non-commercial blogs (like mine) are exempt, but as Inventory2 pointed out on KiwiBlog,

Commercial blogs - does this refer to both the blog and the host site, the blog itself, or the host site?

It’s also a wonder if a commercial blog is considered so if it has something like Google AdSense to help fund website costs.

It’s also interesting that emails are classed as election advertising. I’d like to know how they plan to enforce this without stepping into the Privacy Act. I’d also like to know why non-commercial blogs get away scot-free, yet non-commercial emails don’t. And why do YouTube videos all get caught out as well despite people not really making money out of them?

David will be updating his blog (hopefully today) that will clarify these and a few other points. I don’t have time to read 150 pages of the bill. I do support the notion that it prevents people with huge wads of cash from getting in on the act (i.e. Exclusive Brethren), but why must the impinge on the rights of everyone else as well? There’s also a strange sense of inconsistency as to what entails election advertising that breaks the law.

On a more interesting note, people seem to be accusing David of being wrong about things like megaphone use, when the wording is so terribly broad. At least the Greens are going to help reword this to be a bit more specific (as in, people who go around in cars with giant megaphones, and not Joe on the side of the street-corner).