1. Forum
  2. USENET
  3. nz.general

  • =?UTF-8?B?8J+Hs/Cfh78=?= Greens Want To Cap Political Donations

    From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to nz.general,alt.politics on Tue Sep 22 01:15:33 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    <https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361036649/its-past-time-act-greens-pledge-cap-political-donations-introduce-lobbyist-register>:

    rCLRight now, a handful of very rich and powerful people and
    corporations can buy access and influence the government for their
    benefit," [Marama] Davidson said.

    ...

    [The new bill] will also allow only donations from people, not
    companies, and require parties to name anyone who gives more than
    $1000 a year.

    Note that rCLpeople, not companiesrCY. We have all seen the abuses in the
    US rCLSuperPACrCY system coming about as a direct consequence of the
    stupid legal principle that a corporation can legally be a person, and
    have no desire to see those repeated here.

    Other parties also have their own ideas about restrictions that should
    be applied to political donations. Nobody wants democracy in NZ to be
    something that can be bought and sold for the benefit of the rich and
    powerful.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From wn@wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) to nz.general on Tue Sep 22 03:24:10 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Tue, 22 Sep 2026, Loony Larry wrote: ><https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/361036649/its-past-time-act-greens-pledge-cap-political-donations-introduce-lobbyist-register>:
    rCLRight now, a handful of very rich and powerful people and
    corporations can buy access and influence the government for their
    benefit," [Marama] Davidson said.

    Dear Loony Larry, do you have any idea, in your tiny mind, how
    demented the Greens are? That they are just sandboxed children?
    Marxist puppets?

    Let's pretend that they are sane for a moment, and see if we can find
    a contradiction in that picture. Look at their leadership. Some
    decades ago, in the name of sexual equality, they adopted a shared
    leadership to be held by one man and one woman. Real sandbox stuff,
    right? So look what happened -- they abolished the sex roles and now
    have two women instead. Yes, men are so 20th century. You are
    abolished, Loony Larry, crawl back under something along with the
    other cockroaches, I mean men, unwanted and unneeded European men.

    So why still have a shared leadership? Here's an idea -- have two
    *men* in the shared leadership role. No worries, right? HA HA HA --
    the Greens would self-immolate.

    They hate you, Larry. You are a -- what did Lenin call it -- a
    "useful idiot".

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From BR@blah@blah.blah to nz.general on Tue Sep 22 17:46:50 2026
    From Newsgroup: nz.general

    On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 01:15:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D Oliveiro
    <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:


    [The new bill] will also allow only donations from people, not
    companies, and require parties to name anyone who gives more than
    $1000 a year.

    Note that opeople, not companieso. We have all seen the abuses in the
    US oSuperPACo system coming about as a direct consequence of the
    stupid legal principle that a corporation can legally be a person, and
    have no desire to see those repeated here.

    Remember when a law was passed that bestowed "personhood" status on
    the Wanganui river?

    Was that a supid legal principle too?

    Bill.
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    https://www.avg.com

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2