Peter Hodgson admits to corruption
Pete Hodgson was asked if the pledge cards were electioneering. He said "yes".
Given that the cards were paid for by the parliamentary leaders fund, for parliamentary business, which excludes party political, promotional or electioneering material, he has admitted to knowingly overspending. He has admitted to partaking in a corrupt practice which is punishable by a year in prison or a $4000.00 fine
But of course you have to be convicted to pay the fine. The police refuse to press charges, and now time has conveniently run out to press charges.
Furthermore, Hodgson has said that Labour will not pay the money back. So why then is Labour building up funds in case it has to pay it back? Labour should pay the money back now - with interest, as well as pay the money that the taxpayer is funding Labour for its legal defence of this corrupt practice, particularly after stating prior to the release of the pledge cards that "the pledge cards and our commitment to keep our word are central to our campaign for a third term."
1 comment:
$4000.00 fine.
The Darnton v Clark case is about misappropriation (under the public finance act, the Bill of Rights 1688 etc) not about corrupt practices under the Electoral Act (Darnton, for one, doesn't think there should be such a thing as overspending). The case could be brought even if Labour had underspent their funding limit.
Post a Comment