International Socialists

Brian Roper

Pre-election funding for the major parliamentary parties gives an important indication of who big business wants to see in power. Prior to the 1984 election corporate backing swung towards Labour, and Labour also got heaps of money from business prior to the 1987 election as a vote of appreciation from the rich for the corporate lolly scramble that was Rogernomics.

In the run up to the 1990 election business shifted its allegiance to National because it thought that Labour hadn't gone far enough towards dismantling the welfare state and "deregulating the labour market" (that is, attacking unions). National used this unprecedented level of corporate funding to stage a highly effective and successful election campaign.

Once in power Ruth Richardson then gave business what it wanted in the form of the Employment Contracts Act in 1991 that led to the halving of union membership. This was followed soon after with cuts to benefits for the poor, increased fees and allowances for students, user charges in health, and tax cuts for the rich. After leaving parliament she happily accepted a seat on the hard right wing Business Roundtable and joined Act.

In 1993 and 1996 big business continued to heavily support the National and Act parties, while providing some more limited funding for Labour in order to keep it in line with the New Right agenda it had introduced from 1984 to 1990. Funding Labour is an insurance policy against the possibility of a popular electoral backlash against pro business and anti working class policies.

The 1999 election

There is no doubt that business did not want a Labour/Alliance victory in the 1999 election. While we don't have detailed evidence as to where the money came from - New Zealand has some of the slackest requirements for public disclosure of political donations anywhere in the world - we do know how much the parties actually spent.

According to figures filed with the Electoral Commission, National out spent Labour by two to one, pouring $2.139 million into its unsuccessful campaign. National was the only party that came close to the $2.3 million dollar maximum allowed on the campaign for the party vote.

Labour, in contrast, spent $1.038 million on its campaign. While this amount is considerably less than National got, it indicates substantial business backing for Labour and, as the flip side of this, continuing Labour Party dependence on money from business.

It is interesting that business backing for Act declined significantly from 1996 to 1999. In 1996 it was able to spend a massive $1.653 million, whereas in 1999 its campaign spending was $657,889. This indicates that business was less keen on Act than National in the run up to the 1999 election.

The Alliance, which campaigned on the basis of the most pro worker policies of any of the parties, was the third largest spender ($744,711). However, it is fair to assume that a high proportion of this money came from small scale fundraising by members, rather than from the big corporations. Nonetheless it is clear that the Alliance got some business money.

The Greens spent a mere $235,918 on their campaign, and did remarkably well in view of this.

Fighting business influence

A famous liberal, and not very radical, American political Scientist (a professor at Harvard actually), Charles Lindblom, highlighted many of the reasons why business is able to exert so much influence over the electoral process (in a book entitled Politics and Markets).

He pointed out that business was able to, "bend electoral controls in its favour" through funding the major parties, which means that they are dependent on business money and hence must promote policies that are never too far out of line with what business wants.

Unions, in contrast, have much less money to invest in gaining political influence. In New Zealand union funding for Labour has fallen dramatically since 1984, and the party has become more dependent than ever on business money.

So don't expect any of the parties to bring real change through parliament. For that the people who do not have heaps of money - workers, students, Mäori and women - will have to organise and fight with strikes, protests and occupations.