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) - ThreadSky

zeddog.bsky.social • 40 days ago

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)

Comments

indexhugger.bsky.social•39 days ago

* effective meaning.. including general ads

indexhugger.bsky.social•39 days ago

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.

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

...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.

indexhugger.bsky.social•39 days ago

They will be in 2025😀

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

Sorry? Not sure what you mean here.

indexhugger.bsky.social•39 days ago

The spend will be large in those seats by the Liberal party.

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

Maybe. But the Liberals are incredibly stretched. They need to win back 19 seats, and they have another 10 seats which are on very thin margins they need to defend. Then there's the other 15 or so which normally wouldn't be a worry but are threatened by the Teals. Gina better have deep pockets!

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

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.

indexhugger.bsky.social•39 days ago

So the figures here are incorrect ? https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/the-major-parties-not-the-independents-are-the-big-spenders-at-election-time/

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

...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.

indexhugger.bsky.social•39 days ago

I am trying to understand your point of view not attacking. Thank you for your engagement with this discussion .

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

...I suppose I'd also add that explaining something doesn't necessarily mean I have a point of view! I'm sure that if I wrote electoral donations laws they'd be different to these. All legislation tends to be cobbled together out of practicality rather than perfection.

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

Sorry, I do get a bit jumpy about that one. I try and explain what I've been asked to explain and then get accused of holding a position I don't necessarily. I suppose it's sort of an occupational hazard!

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

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).

zeddog.bsky.social•39 days ago

These figures show that the indies aren't disadvantaged (given that they're not spending that amount anyway) whilst the majors will be.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply