If the answer results in confusion, more red tape and the potential for litigation, you’ve asked the wrong question and that’s what Labour and its allies did with the Electoral Finance Act.
Instead of asking how to improve our electoral law, they tried to handicap National and in doing trampled over the freedom of speech of individuals and groups. The only good thing about it is that in the process they’ve hamstrung themselves.
The Herald editorial and John Armstrong detail some of the Act’s many shortcomings and note that regardless of who wins the election the Act will not survive. That is cold comfort for those who find their freedom of speech is badly constrained.
The shortcomings aren’t helped by the uncertainty over interpretation of the Act, much of which won’t be cleared up until after the election. I liken it to playing a game knowing the referree won’t tell you the rules until after the final whistle is blown; and a friend who is a lawyer reckons it’s more like being handed a noose to put round your neck and being told to jump without knowing how long the rope is.