Labour bagman continues to argue for non-transparent donations via trusts

Cunliffe undoubtedly feels bruised by revelations around his leadership campaign fundraising

the use of a trust should have been no man's land

It just never stops.  Even after rewriting and then continuing to rort electoral financing rules, he's still arguing the indefensible, an ex-Labour party bagman wants to continue donations via trusts.

When will parties note that the electorate requires total transparency?  There cannot be any hint of  electoral corruption like that continually washing around arrogant Labour acolytes like Lying Len or Silent T. 

New Zealand has not instituted state funding of political parties beyond the broadcasting grant that pays for (and limits) television and radio advertising during an election campaign

Mr Bagman, me paying for your party via the state is definitely not the answer.  If any party cannot raise funds for its lost causes directly from its members, why should I pay to support socialist progressive ideologies, mostly with which I vehemently disagree.

Further,  on a different slant about being a bagman;

Shortly after the 2005 general election, I travelled to Sydney on a personal matter and went to visit Sir Owen

A personal matter?  More likely raising more money for Labour from your monied mate in Double Bay, of which she denied but the She Beast would have been well aware.

Glenn’s loan, negotiated by Mike Williams, was made to Labour at a 0% interest rate, which effectively meant that Glenn was forgoing an interest payment of at least $7,500. Both the Electoral Act 1993 and the Electoral Finance Act clearly stated that such foregone interest qualifies as a donation. (Of course, only donations over $10,000 are required to be declared to the Electoral Commission).