Since my last column about the party that never was (the "teals"), I have found myself asking, why has independent campaign funding become such a focal point of electoral discussion, without balance being given to the finance giants pushing the major parties' agendas?

Login or signup to continue reading

Campaign funding is the dark side of elections. It raises questions about transparency and fairness, and gives breath to arguments about the influence of money on politics.

Federal election campaigns are funded through a mix of public funding, private donations, and self-financing by candidates or parties. Public funding is designed to reduce reliance on private money and "ensure" a level playing field. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) provides public funding to eligible candidates and parties based on the number of first-preference votes they received in the previous election. This funding helps reimburse campaign expenses. However, it also means that if you are running for the first time, you're starting behind the financial eight-ball.

Private donations come from individuals, corporations, unions, and other entities, and can be monetary or in-kind donations. While private donations are essential for campaign operations, they often raise concerns about undue influence, especially when large sums come from a few wealthy donors or organisations.

But private donations are a double-edged sword: they enable candidates to reach voters through advertising, events, and grassroots organising, but they can also create a perception - or reality - of favouritism. For instance, in Australia's 2022 federal election, Clive Palmer's United Australia Party spent a staggering $123 million, largely funded by his mining........

© Canberra Times