Grey Lynn Labour Party officeRussell Brown at Public Address brings it up only to make the point (as did I rather noisily before the election) that "Act also used tax dollars on a number of publications (including one a week out from the election) that really did look a bit like election advertising." I'm not sure however why this is relevant to a case being taken by the Libz leader against Labour, or why this is the only comment on Darnton v Clark that Russell cares to make, but strange things happen around Grey Lynn that the rest of us don't always understand.
- Jordan, of course, the Leaderene's online voice, has yet to publicly notice it's going on. Perhaps he too is feeling "rather snippy" about it all? How dare someone point out the misappropriation of half-a-million dollars of public money in order to win an election!
- Andrew Falloon has noticed, and while he's right behind it, he thinks Bernard has no "chance in hell" because "the laws surrounding election spending are, at best, quite grey." Well, being an ACT board member perhaps he has to say that, but given that the Electoral Commission clearly told the Labour Party before the election that the pledge cards were definitely election spending -- just as they had been in 2002 -- then there's little room for doubt that this money was clearly mis-used. (Remember, the case isn't about breaching the Electoral Act, it's about using money for one purpose -- electioneering -- that was appropriated by Parliament for another: to fund the PM's office.)
This isn't going away.
[Thanks to the good folk at Generation XY for the image: go there and see if you can dream up a better caption.]
Darnton v Clark, Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour, Politics-ACT