Member log in

Dotcom spending $4m to try and change the govt

One News has reported that Kim Dotcom has put $4 million into the Internet Party. No wonder he has no money for creditors, nannies or staff!

I recall the CTU (Laila Harre’s current employer) said donation limit should be $5,000. The Greens (her employer before that) say $35,000 limit. But I bet you neither condemn Dotcom donating $4 million to buy a pet party, despite it being 800 times and 110 times what they said the limit should be.

Now just imagine that say the ACT Party received a $4 million donation from a convicted criminal fighting extradition for alleged financial crimes. Could you imagine the outrage from the left who would spend months decrying it and protesting against it?

Anyone who thinks this is not about trying to prevent extradition has to be kidding themselves. Why else would he be spending $4 million? It certainly isn’t to promote Internet issues.

The new Internet Party leader admitted today she actually knows almost nothing about Internet issues such as net neutrality, the HDC Bill, filtering, software patents, copyright, cybersafety, digital divide, rural braodband, ultrafast broadband, telco competition issues, the proposed copper tax, ISP liability and the like.

Here’s what she talked about in her press conference as Internet Party leader:

  • Asset sales
  • Employment laws
  • Sky City
  • Women’s rights
  • Paid parental leave
  • National Standards
  • Free tertiary education
  • Welfare state
  • Spy powers
  • Banning nuclear weapons
  • Springbok Tour

Does that look like an Internet Party to you? It’s an insult to those of us who have spent 20 years actually fighting for Internet issues. Her issues are the issuees of the Alliance and Mana.

She’s a great MP for the typical hard left issues. But her selection as leader shows that the $4 million is purely about trying to change the government, and has nothing to do with promoting policies good for the Internet.

UPDATE: Matthew Beveridge points out the Internet Party Leader has sent fewer tweets in 12 months than he does in a typical day. Laila as Leader of the Internet Party is like having Colin Craig as the Leader of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party!

Did she even join the party before she was asked to become its leader? I guarantee you the answer is no.

Political commentator David Farrar posts at Kiwiblog.

Comments and questions
21

More scaremongering from the far right! What about access for cash to the cabinet minister's club David? You'll be kidding yourself not to think that paying thousands of dollars to meet the prime minister or any cabinet minister is not corruption!

Missed the point in your eagerness to say something; makes you vulnerable to foot-in-the-mouth syndrome.

FYI: The issue David has raised is about hidden agendas viz. buying your way out of extradition, and the scandalous size political donations.

This leftie apparently also owns a winery on that paradise for left wingers - Waiheke Island, an Italian restaurant and rental houses.
Like Cunliffe a "real" left winger! Yeah Right!

Mr Key,
Hoisted by his own petard, he could have got rid of these parties riding on the coattails, but he chose to ignore the electoral referendum, because he thought he would need Act again, and he will probably need them, now every vote of Mana-Dot-com counts .

The biggest internet issue at the moment is widespread spying on us and Kim Dotcom is certainly interested in this. Making spies behave is one of his top priorities.

The internet companies are right in there in the spying game and kim dot coms companies are no exception they follow your clicks as you come and leave their sites, they sill look at where you have been. Corporate spying on their customers are many orders of magnitude more than government spying.

Have a look at beacon technology that they are now starting to distribute around and in shopping centres and soon everywhere else.

Whats a lazy million or so
Stuff reports "Kim Dotcom has shaken up the election with a claim his new Internet Party will have a $3 million war chest. That pledge was revealed yesterday ..."
Who cares. I'm loving the shake up the old boys club of NZ politics is getting. When the news broke during the week I actually saw a Nat party mover and shaker blanche, either that or he wet himself.

In reply to Anonymous, it is hardly scaremongering. Mr Farrar's writes the truth. Farrar's key contention that Dotcom is buying his way into Parliament with an enormous sum - while facing international criminal allegations, without eliciting protests from the left - is undeniable. So Dotcom is allowed to donate a vast sum with not a squeak of protest from Russell Norman of the Greens who must be quaking in his boots about the splintering of the Green vote. Thankfully we have PM Key in charge.

Yep, this is blatantly an attempt by DotCom to buy a party that would prevent his deportation if it held any influence on government.

Not a big surprise and I agree as someone with 20 years in IT that this party has little to nothing to offer "the internet" or technology in general.

Also, Anonymous Coward #1, nice attempt at diversion rather than answering any of the questions raised here.

I'd say the $4 million donation is more an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Won't work though - start packing the bags Sgt. Schultz, the land of the free beckons.

The course of justice has already been perverted.

The only difference is, the govt gets to make their acts legal in retrospect.

There is no justice to be had for Kim Dotcom in the USA. See Bradley Manning, Khalid El-Masri etc. The only reason Dotcom was every arrested was because of Hollywood lobbyists "donating" to certain folk with power.

This is an understatement from the Informed !!!

So, DPF, which side of that debate are you on? Your article is contradictory.

Should political parties be privately funded as they are now, and thereby enable single donors of large amounts? Like Act, the Conservatives and the Internet Party?

Or are you actually agreeing with the Greens, that donations should be limited to modest amounts, or even scrapped altogether in favour of state funding?

Which is it?

let me spell it for you. the article is about hypocrisy and corruption..

He was pointing out the blatant hypocrisy by the usual mouth pieces on the Left. Have a re-read once again.

The IMP's are now the ultimate in crony capitalism, in bed with a convicted fraudster who can't even be in Parliament - so his motives for splashing out $4M is what?

The silence is deafening from the Left though, although with CunningCV more than willing to jump into bed with the IMP's in an orgy of convenience - I only hope it's not NZInc that requires the penicillin once the Left's political game of twister has completed.

Talk about Omni-cluster shambles producing a 5-headed Taniwha for NZ to vote for... or not!

He is just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left who complain at about what they see as right wing supporters making big donations to political parties to 'buy' influence but not a whimper from them about the biggest political donation and example of influence buying in NZ's political history.

I do not support limits on donations. I support transparency on those donations so people can judge the motives of the donors and those receiving the donations.

Must not forget Kim.Com is supportive of the spy Edward Snowden.

In other news, in order to live up to their respective names: Maori party is exclusively for Maori, Green Party must uniformly dress in green and Labour Party will start breaking rocks on a daily basis.

You need to understand, that people who enter into politics, do so for a reason: to fulfill their own ambitions of serving themselves, on the pretext of serving others.

I still think dotcoms only reason for entering into politics is to claim diplomatic immunity to avoid the American courts.