Climate 200 exploits donation law gap to fund independent candidates
Opposition Leader Jess Wilson will face a first-time moneyed independent challenger in her marginal seat of Kew after the teal movement’s funder Climate 200 exploited a temporary loophole in Victoria’s charity laws.
Climate 200 co-convener Simon Holmes à Court told this imprint that his organization donated $40,000 to the campaign of Sophie Torney, the independent candidate trying to unseat Wilson, and made the same donation to Shima Ibuki, who is running as an independent in Hawthorn against former Liberal leader John Pesutto.
If the donations had been made before April 15, when the Supreme Court struck down Victoria’s campaign finance laws as unconstitutional, they would have been illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Under the previous regime, the maximum amount any person or organization could donate to a candidate was $4,970.
There are currently no limits on the amount of, or disclosure of, private donations to political candidates in Victoria.
The size of the Climate 200 contribution, which Holmes à Court said will be used to “kick-start” independent campaigns ahead of the November 28 election, will renew urgency within the government and opposition to re-establish campaign finance rules.
Allan’s government had hoped to legislate as early as Tuesday, when parliament resumes, but is struggling to devise a new framework that would satisfy its caucus, win enough support within parliament and withstand any challenges from the Supreme Court.
Holmes à Court, which supported former independent candidates Paul Hopper and Melissa Lowe’s successful Supreme Court case, defended Climate 200’s decision to exploit the regulatory loophole.
“Victorian taxpayers fund almost all of their opponents’ campaigns, giving the big boys a huge advantage,” he said. “If we want fair elections remotely, we need to make sure opponents have enough support to take action.
“With only 202 days left until the election, candidates cannot be expected to sit around and wonder how to clean up the state’s mess.”
He said he did not personally contribute to the donations.
Catherine Williams, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, said Climate 200’s move underlined the need for the government to act quickly to restore transparency in the flow of campaign money.
The Center for Public Integrity is pushing for an immediate step to reinstate disclosure requirements and public finance regulations and create a more considered process for developing a new campaign finance regime after the election.
“During the period when Victoria had no donation regulations, we anticipated that we would see an increase in the flow of money to campaigns,” Williams said. “This is why we want the government to at least urgently restore transparency.
“Ultimately, what we want is for parliament to create a comprehensive process to handle the post-election period so that these and other complex issues of political financing regulation can be properly addressed.”
Prime Minister Jacinta Allan has promised to date any changes to the Electoral Act to the day the Supreme Court decision was made.
A significant influx of donations to teal campaigns in Kew and Hawthorn will reshape contests in two of the Liberal Party’s vulnerable seats in the city and invite greater scrutiny over how Climate 200 funds independents from the community.
While Climate 200 is backed by high-profile figures like Holmes à Court, he says his election war chest is crowdfunded, generated by modest donations from more than 30,000 supporters.
He published an advertisement in . Age In a statement on Saturday, he warned that this financing model, which is said to include average donations of just $33, would once again be declared illegal under the legislation designed by the major parties.
Holmes à Court has also created an online portal titled “advantage wallThis illustrates publicly funded benefits that incumbent MPs representing major parties received under previous laws to pay for political activities, which independent challengers were not able to enjoy.
It calculates that even where a rival can raise $250,000 in donations, they start more than $2 million behind a Labor or Coalition MP.
Former Labor senator David Feeney, who recommended changes to Victoria’s campaign finance laws in his 2024 report, last week described the current loophole as a regulatory disaster.
The Social Democrat told the podcast: “Unless a new system is put in place very, very quickly, the consequences will be that our November elections turn into a billionaires’ picnic.”
“What this means in practical terms in November is that the teal independents, the One Nation candidates – unless something changes – now have access to this state and the rivers of gold flowing into their political coffers.”
Liberal MP David Davis went further. “It is hypocritical for Teal and Climate 200 to complain about donations when they were the first to donate,” he said.
Independent candidates ran in Kew and Hawthorn in the 2022 state election but were kept campaign-poor due to Victoria’s strict donations laws. Torney won 21 percent of the vote in Kew, while Wilson held 4 percent of the vote.
Torney said the Climate 200 donation would get the 2026 campaign off the starting blocks.
“In Victoria, major parties start every campaign with five to 10 times more resources than an independent party, and most of this shortfall is made up of public money funneled to them by the major parties,” he said. “This is not a fair contest.”
Victorian Trades Hall Council is also taking aim at the Liberal leader in its seat, using a prominent billboard highlighting his party’s intention to favor One Nation candidates over Labor. Wilson says no decision has been made.
Ibuki said the donation would make a financial difference to his campaign at Hawthorn.
“The Supreme Court struck down Victorian campaign finance laws for good reason, as the system rewarded major parties and incumbents while placing huge obstacles in the way of a new independent candidate,” he said.
The Supreme Court decision focused on a regulation made under old laws that allowed major parties to receive unlimited campaign donations from old investment funds. The court found that the regulation, which did not benefit small parties, new members or independents, was unfair and unconstitutional.
The government, the Liberal Party and the Greens agreed in backroom talks to reintroduce a cap on donations. There is no consensus on where the cap should be set, how much public funding should be available for political campaigns, and how legacy investment funds should be handled.
Start your day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
Chip Le Grand leads our state politics reporting team. He had previously served as the newspaper’s chief correspondent and was a journalist with 30 years of experience.Connect via email.
