Pay Back

Here’s a proposition for punters out there.

It has been demonstrated that the NSW Labor Party received a $100,000 donation that it was not legally permitted to receive.  It does not appear that those funds were returned.  The NSW ALP (presumably) used those fund, as part of a broader expenditure, to campaign in elections.  These funds did not crowd out other donations.

From the campaigning that this $100,000 purchased, things like signs, staff, advertising, etc, NSW Labor candidates presumably received more votes than they might have otherwise received.  If this is not the case, why spend on campaigns at all?

Given the way the tax payers contribute to election campaigns, it could be argued that the NSW Labor Party inappropriately received tax payer funds.

For the 2019 NSW election, parties received:

  • $4.32 per first preference vote received by the endorsed candidates of the party in the Legislative Assembly, plus
  • $3.24 per first preference vote received by the endorsed candidates of the party in the Legislative Council

For the 2016 Federal election, parties received $2.62784 per eligible vote and $2.75642 per eligible vote for the 2019 Federal election.

Hypothetically, an extra 1,000 votes across 10 seats in the 2019 Federal election is worth approximately $27,500 in additional public funds.   This does not include senate voting flow ons and these are funds that might have otherwise gone to another party.

So.  Given the near viciousness that the ATO and Centrelink pursues mere citizens, will the respective electoral commissions purse the NSW Labor Party for what could be politely called electoral fraud?

Over to you Attorneys-General.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Pay Back

  1. C.L.

    Given the near viciousness that the ATO and Centrelink pursues mere citizens, will the respective electoral commissions purse the NSW Labor Party for what could be politely called electoral fraud?

    Ahahahahahaha.
    Yeah, no.

  2. stackja

    ALP keeps being given benefit of the doubt on many matters. I don’t expect any change soon.

  3. duncanm

    please refer latest Utopia episode.

  4. One law for all and equality under the law? You have got to be kidding me.

  5. Ellen

    No politician would support this, because it would catch every party, not just the ALP. Just like the dual citizen fiasco. There is one law for most of us, and another law for politicians.

  6. Dr.Fred Lenin

    Abolish all taxpayer funduing to parties to enhance the careers of aparatchiki , then limit donations to $10 “per person group of persons or ompanies , per annum ,wih dracoan punishment for illegal contribuuions deemed as “Bribes “ . The parties can then rely on the committed members volunteering their services , we all kow that will work well . I can just see all those tertiary educated woke tossers giving their valuable time to the cause ,Gratis ! They can even asosciate with the great unwashed voters their career polliemuppet comrades despise but. rely on for their careers .
    Realpolitiks at work.

  7. Percy Popinjay

    For the 2016 Federal election, parties received $2.62784 per eligible vote and $2.75642 per eligible vote for the 2019 Federal election.

    Yet another reason to pencil in an extra box on the ballot paper with “None of the above” next to it.

  8. wal1957

    for what could be politely called electoral fraud?

    No doubt about it to me.
    They have received benefit that they otherwise would not have.
    It could be likened to money laundering.

  9. Nato

    But even should they?
    That was a very academic tie between the two, wouldn’t you say?
    Is the one an outcrop from lassaiz faire capitalist use of personal property or a social Predator who needs to be stopped?
    Is the other an abuse of taxation powers and recklessly wasting government revenue in a money-go-round for insiders or a necessary element to ensure the smooth functioning of a mature democracy?
    It’s a good question for if anyone were to ever host a libertarian dinner party (do those exist?)
    I could stand to hear more of your money-for-votes Vs money-for-votes reasoning here. It’s a detour from my train of thought.

  10. Since when is anyone of the Left not above the law?

  11. The Sheriff

    The ALP are a protected species in Australia and never have to answer for their actions, criminal or otherwise.

  12. W Hogg

    Note also St Bernard Sanders took an illegal donation to the value of of $200k from the ALP. Foreign collusion is apparently not permitted in US elections. St Bernard paid a fine of $14k.

    So the penalty for an illegal donation is 15x smaller than the donation.

  13. Ian of Brisbane

    Just another day at the office.

  14. TAFKAS reasoning is A1 IMHO – I think another true statement would be “that in view of the concealment of the NSW ALP corruption from April 2015 – it follows that the 2016 & 2019 Fed Elections were run under false pretences – most certainly in NSW – and same applies to the 2019 NSW election”. The 2015 NSW election was held on 28 March, less than a month before the NSW ALP took delivery of the $100K in the ALDI shopping bag. Now if some ALP staffers at Sussex Street knew that a big donation had been secured – and that many $thousands would rockup. If knowing that, spending on electioneering was increased – then there is a case the 2015 NSW election was ditto corrupted and held under false pretences.
    Staggering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.