...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.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
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.
Diversity? The Teals - apart from being women- are scarcely diverse (particularly compared to Labor or the Greens). They're basically the kind of women that the Liberals should have been preselecting all along - with much the same values.
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.
...and please don't do that thing where someone asks me to explain something and then attacks me when I do just that. Knowing how things work and being responsible for the thing aren't the same.
The article points out that it can't distinguish national/state spends from local ones. The examples it cites of 'big spending' by the majors are $1 million campaigns (and they're rare enough to be singled out).
Comments