Yes. $800k is a ridiculous amount to spend on one seat in an election campaign. $50k from one individual should be enough for a 'community driven' movement. Volunteers on the ground will always beat deep pockets.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I think the concern is that the effective spend of the major parties in an electorate can exceed this by virtue of generic advertising. A cap on all flyers, billboards, tv/radio ad minutes etc for a party in an electorate is the fair goal right?
...so, for example, I could spend my (excessive amount) of $800k only to be told that I'd exceeded the limit because (totally unbeknown to me) the Feds had run a generic ad on Channel 7.
You would be told in advance of national election plans viewable by members of you electorate and adjust your spend accordingly. If this is to hard, maybe put the indie cap at the level the state/Feds might spend to ensure fairness?
Seriously, I don't get the whinge about the $800k. It's a LOT of money. Even Haines' $400k spend is very wasteful, with money spent of frivolous items.
One big advantage the indies have is the amount of free media they're given. A Labor candidate being announced in a seat is of local interest only; a Teal putting up their hand in the same seat can result in national coverage. Not sure how that (incredibly valuable) advantage can be accounted for.
I am extremely happy that there is a greater diversity of voices in parliament (and women). I agree the amounts are too high and limits on "effective" (including organisational/ billionaire) spend is appropriate. But goal should be fair.
Not practical in the context of a federal election (I know, I've run a few local seat campaigns). Local ad spends need to be booked weeks in advance & there are penalties for cancellation (let alone sunk costs). $800k is more than fair (Indi indies have never spent more than $400k)
I would guess the "effective spend" of the libs would have been higher given they can channel funds from safe seats to contested seats. Not sure if your max of 400k is correct or different things being counted.
...I actually doubt that there was an unusually high spend in these seats from the Libs - those in safe seats are meant to look after themselves when it comes to fundraising. Indeed, Frydenberg's position would have meant he was campaigning and raising funds for other seats during the election.
If you don't know what the Libs spent, you can't judge if the indies spend was excessive. The 'less than $400k' is straight from Haines (multiple interviews), as well as local knowledge.
There is a difference between a party campaigning nationally and one campaigning locally. The generic advertising referred to in the proposed laws (which I'm not saying are perfect!) is more to do with, say, running an add on national TV.
It would be hard to determine a way to work out what that was worth to an individual campaign, or indeed for an individual campaign (which isn't usually integrated with the main one) to work out if their spending had exceeded the cap in those circumstances.
Comments