So, Trevor Mallard's Labour-emblazoned electorate vehicle has been deemed an "electoral advertisement" under the Electoral Finance Act. What's surprising is that anyone is surprised by it. The EFA uses a "reasonable person" test, and I think any reasonable person would agree that this eye-catching paint job is intended to persuade people to vote in a particular way (and if it wasn't, why would he be doing it?). That makes it an advertisement, which must bear a promoter statement.
As for DPF's contention that this makes the entire vehicle attributable expenditure, I doubt it. The advertising is in the paint job. Without it, it's just a van. But I guess he has to adopt extreme positions to keep the sewer-dwellers fed.
