Who buys the election – follow the money

A site called followthemoney.nz is worth looking at. It is beta site that tracks since 2019, the visible money directed at political parties. It includes declared donations, the broadcasting allocations, some details on the donations over and under 15k and a interesting list of declared donors in 2026 up to the end of September.

Interesting site. Especially when you look at the vast divergence the support levels between the socially and environmentally conscious parties and those that clearly like being brought. But looking at the current levels of polling, I guess that the clear difference is that money may help the incompetent and ill-prepared win elections, but that the current coalition has completely fumbled its way through the crises of this term, is giving them every chanche of losing this election based on current polling.

But I wonder how their donors will feel if their money causes the first first one-term National led government? Because this National party and their coalition parties clearly haven’t leaned into governance. Instead they appear to have leaned mostly into satisfying the paymasters.

Also of interest is the amount of money going into electorate campaigns presumably since 2019.

I suspect that a lot of that is central party funds and donations being pushed in. But it is pretty startling when you look at the two electorates of Invercargill (where I am currently living) and Mt Albert (my long-time ‘home’ electorate) over the same period.

But money isn’t a particularly good indicator of how to win an election or even a series of them. Generally Conservatives always win on the money raising, mostly because of the short-sighted focus of business owners who tend to look for immediate returns rather than strategic goals. However money in elections has a limited correlation with electoral success in New Zealand when you look at our political and economic history.

It isn’t hard to argue more generally, that based on history that reasonable social democratic governments do more for economies long term than conservative ones. They tend to focus on the human capital, innovation, usable long-term infrastructure, and conserving societal and economic resilience than conservatives ever attempt. Conservative governments have the problem of always wanting to plan for steady as she goes. But are then pretty incompetent at handing the vicissitudes of international and natural fortune. Which are becoming increasingly likely as time goes on. Sure, each event is a one-off and each requires a strong state structure and a clear vision about how to deal with it expeditiously.

Be it the ‘Asian flu’ of 1997 arriving on the back of a wholesale cutting of economic security. Or the current ongoing disaster that is Donald Trump. The effect of his administrations on world economics has completely screwing an unprepared National-led government’s expected rise in growth. After they’d spent years retrenching an economy into high unemployment and a weakened civil service, the expected growth was stymied by an unstable numbskull on the other side of the world launching various kinds of disruptive wars. Conservative governments don’t look forward at potential risks and to build in the resilience that is required to overcome them.

Conservative governments may be good for particular businesses in the short term, but bad for the society, the economy, and generally for overall business over longer time frames.

Like the LNG terminal in support of the industrial gas users for a few years as their infrastructure falls apart. Or the oil and gas industry for meaningless exploration in the face of the rapid technological and environmental changes that are ongoing. My first degree was in Earth Sciences, so I’m highly aware of the limited potential for economic strikes in out fractured geology. That the Taranaki basin being economic was highly unexpected by everyone in 1959. The other good prospects are mostly in the Great Southern basin mostly south of Stewart Island which make the fields in the northern Atlantic look like millpond.

Invariably pandering to those that pay you in political parties prioritises bad governance over the medium and long-term. It diverts capital and productive energy into a relatively non-productive areas. The entire roads of significance to National (RONS) program is a prime example of this kind of ridiculous pandering.

While achieving political objectives, conservatives have a nasty tendency not to plan on how to build in actual resilience into society and the economy. They pander to their core constituencies, setting a high priority on those that pay them to listen their concerns. It is tiresome, especially when they simply don’t listen to the electorate and do stupid ideological games at the behest of their (financial) supporters.

About the only time I can remember National being useful in a crisis was in the 2010 Christchurch urban earthquakes. When they relied heavily upon the billions built up in the Natural Hazard Fund that was originally created after the urban 1931 Napier earthquake and later 1942 Wairarapa earthquakes.

Also of interest to me was a few bits of the top individual and business donors.

I see that Graeme Hart is on the list as the top overall donor by far for conservative parties when you look at his wholly owned Rank Group and his personal donations. I met him once in 1986, as he started the Otago MBA a year after me. I wonder if he still remembers copying some carefully NOP’ed software at our place on the Cannongate. 🙂