Election Corruption
... Mr Clarkson had the right as the lessee of a building to display a sign on that building without including the market value of the display space as a campaign expense, as Mr Henry had said was necessary. The judges feared a "rash of electoral petitions" should the act be interpreted otherwise.
What does this mean? Untested Election law to prevent corruption says that there is a maximum level of advertising (spare us all from excessive election campaigns!) for an election candidate and Bob Clarkson took Tauranga by a slender vote majority with advertising deals such as the above.
This is unfair if it favours candidate that own prominently placed commerical property and free signwriters who want to support their candidate by painting commericals on such public property. The value of that advertising has to be assessed as a portion of the expenses of owning that land, as a value that could be otherwised realized if the owner so desired. The cost to the owner is the opportunity that such advertising creates by demonstrating that such advertising is effective, he is demonstrating that such advertising has a value, a cost upon our eyes - rather than a cost in the accounting sense. It is the exposure, not the bank account that the law addresses.
No comments:
Post a Comment