Why did they do it? Because they are scared, they are scared the polls haven't gone the way they would have hoped, they are scared this is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get things legally sorted the way they would like, and they are scared they are going to lose.
The question is not really whether it's misleading. I will be astonished if the authority doesn't rule against them. The question is - is it too late?
Wheels turn slowly at authorities who gather to review rules.
By the time they meet, debate, decide and release their findings, it may well be too late. The deed might have had the desired affect - to suck in the vulnerable.
There is also another issue at play. This is role of a state-funded group such as the New Zealand Drug Foundation taking such an overt and highly political stance on such a deeply divisive issue.
All such agencies should be explicitly prevented from taking the sort of stance that the foundation has. The fact they are not prevented from this activity drags the main funder of the group - the Government - into play and stretches the idea of their neutrality.
Why do we have rules around political parties and monies raised and not around political issues? Photo / Getty Images
The fact that the Government raised the issue, initiated the vote and allegedly quite independently then have one of the agencies they heavily fund backing the change is asking a lot of us in terms of believing their transparency and credibility.
And what makes it even more insidious is that the foundation have used their platform to raise money.
No, they haven't used the taxpayers' money directly, but they have used the benefit of the taxpayer funding, the funding that gives them standing and recognition in the community, to then reach out for more money to peddle their cause.
Ross Bell, who heads this group, claims he has raised $300,000. Where those dollars come from is a question we will come back to.
But ask yourself this: could Bell, the individual you'd never heard of, have raised the money if he didn't have the name recognition of the organisation you and I have so generously funded? No, he couldn't.
So he has taken that goodwill and has done so with support of the Government.
As to the money raised, then until Friday - the foundation or anyone spruiking referenda can spend whatever they like, they can get the money from whoever they like, and they don't have to tell us where it came from.
What sort of mad wild west, no holds barred idiocy is that?
Bell claims a lot of it comes from regular New Zealanders in small amounts. He says a lot also comes from trusts. Who is behind them?
Who would know? Certainly not us.
The rules are such that if you wanted to, and had the money, you could buy the vote, or at least swing it heavily your desired way.
As of Friday thank goodness, groups like the foundation will be limited to $100,000 a month for the three months until the election.
But you will note still no detail on where that money comes from.
Why do we have rules around political parties and monies raised and not around political issues?
It almost seems like no one thought of it. Or perhaps they did think of it and decided to avoid any sort of real scrutiny for fear of not being able to get access to exactly the sort of money they have?
So in that sense this isn't even really about the rights or wrongs of legalising weed.
It's about the rights and wrongs of how a foundation behaves, where it gets it money from, whether it should be acting the way it is, whether it will be called out for it and whether the Government is complicit - while pretending it's got nothing to do with them.
If you feel you're being played like a fiddle then you're not alone.
