Election spending. Big money for indi winners and losers

The Electoral Commission’s revelations reveal that the money Climate 200 and others spend on independent candidates varies widely and may be a poor indicator of success at the ballot box. Andrew Gardiner reports.

One of the quirks of the AEC’s disclosure rules is that donation data for individual candidates is released today, while donations to political parties are not disclosed until February 2026.

Nearly a third ($10.8 million) of the $29.7 million in donations announced to a total of 88 independent candidates came from crowdfunders Climate 200.

The disclosure shows that close to a million dollars were sent to candidates who had little realistic chance of winning, while others who barely lost received a fraction of that money. In McPherson (QLD), C200 and investor Rob Keldoulis, one of its strongest players, sent $961,409 to Erchana Murray-Bartlett’s campaign. He received 13.7% of the votes (24% after the elections). McPherson is the home of Byron Fay, the crowdfunder’s chief executive.

In Calare (NSW), this pair of donors were joined by the affiliated Regional Voices fund, donating a total of $819,470. Kate Hook offer. Kate received 16.7% of the vote (26.9% after preferences).

When it came to demographic factors in McPherson and another independent candidacy in Calare, pundits gave neither candidate much of a chance, leading some in the movement to attack what they called “wasteful spending on vanity projects.”

narrow losses

Sending some of that money elsewhere could make a big difference in a seat like Bean (ACT), which ‘orange teal’ Jessie Price narrowly missed out on. 700 votesor in Fremantle, where Kate Hullet 1400 votes fell short. But the C200 only added to Price’s campaign. $54,000Previous reports stated that Hullet’s late fee against Fremantle brought in $50,000 from the crowdfunder.

“If we had more funding, we could be stronger on Social Media and profiling,” Price said. MWM. On McPherson for funding, social media spend on just two platforms for a late campaign day reached: more than $10,000.

A source close to C200 insists that polling and demographic data determine who gets what this year, and that Hullet’s late candidacy opens them up to a tight donation window.

But other sources in the movement were appalled by the figures and pointed out that Murray-Bartlett was paid for the express purpose of running. Others like Jazz Heise (Cowper, NSW, received $60,000), Alex Dyson (Wannon, Vic.) and Kate Hook (Calare, NSW) officially received a generous “salary” for expenses, they say.

“I personally witnessed Jazz (Heise) taking money,” former Cowper and Dickson (Qld) operations and finance director Damien Attwood said. MWM.

Is independence in danger?

Critics say such payments contradict the selling point of ‘Orange’ independence. “The idea of ​​being an MP – especially for independents who believe in community engagement – ​​is to represent the values ​​and interests of your constituents,” said former Groom (Qld) and Berowra (NSW) campaign manager Josh Addison.

C200 donated $10,857,934 Independent candidates ahead of May elections, in which the allies spent millions more.

What’s next for the teal, will we go back to basics or politics as usual?

Meanwhile, it’s an open secret in teal circles that some candidates and campaigns have agreed to turn over their databases of volunteers and donors to C200 before the campaign is allowed to run or a campaign’s debts are cleared. MWM While we learned of data transfers from independent campaigns in Berowra and Cowper (NSW), Forrest (WA), in Berowra and a willing candidate, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) with candidates or operators were approved before he was interviewed.

One source said data or financial transfer “could violate volunteer and donor privacy” MWM. “It positions (C200) as the default destination for money that once went directly to community-based campaigns.”

Data-driven campaigns

C200 maintains that the crowdfunder has not paid or signed a deal with any candidate or group. On data and financial transfer, a spokesperson said C200 is “unapologetically data-driven. When applying for support, we ask campaigns for insights into the strength of their campaigns. How campaigns respond is entirely up to them.”

Discontent has been growing within the teal ranks for months since the independents came to the fore in 2022. just kept Parliament floor during the elections in May. With the adoption of new donation rules, which the movement’s founder Simon Holmes a Court described as a “fiscal gerrymander” against the teal, sources say they have squandered a last, golden opportunity to increase their parliamentary footprint.

Critics blame one-size-fits-all messaging and tactics, combined with the corporate culture at organizations such as C200 and allied consultants Watershed, for sapping the magic of the movement this year. But others, such as Jessie Price (Bean), say they have not experienced ‘top-down’ interference.

Some seats (including Bean) were initially viewed as unlikely buys that did not warrant full C200 or Watershed regulation. In the more ‘up-and-coming’ regional seats, city-based consultants such as Watershed’s managing director Nick Moraitis (Cowper) have brought city-centric values ​​and sometimes messages.

Movement sources say this was a fatal mistake for Cowper and Wannon, where expected victories turned into narrow defeats. “They don’t understand rural voters,” says Forrest candidate Sue Chapman.

C200, for its part, sees positives in the May results, citing an increase in the Australian-wide vote for independents from 5.3 per cent in 2022 to over 7 per cent this year. That number came from 38 candidates, double the 19 running in 2022.

Top ten donations received

Other winning independent candidates Helen Haines (Indi) received $629,318, Zali Steggal (Warringah) received $789,736, Dai Le (Fowler) received $102,358 and Andrew Wilkie received $66,861. Nicolette Boele (Bradfield) did not report any donations.

Shall we go back to the kitchen table?

Some within the movement viewed Teals’ 2025 campaign as a pale copy of 2022, where community engagement was the agenda of the day. The second principles are the ‘talk around the kitchen table’ model, where everyone affected by an issue in their community should have a say in the decision-making process on that issue.

If promotional videos are any guide, the C200 is exactly that kitchen table politics. beating heart C200 Executive Director Byron Fay told the audience in one clip that the independent community movement (is) community groups (and that) really differentiates (us) from the old politics.

Yet it is Fay who has drawn the most ire from some movement sources longing for the community engagement ‘magic’ of 2022. They cite angry, micromanaged emails from the C200 boss responding to comments critical of the crowdfunder during local campaign Zoom meetings.

Sources close to C200 supported Fay and insisted her intelligence was an asset in the world of bad politics.

Many close to the teal movement see the 2025 disappointments not as an opportunity for revenge but as a chance to get better. While recent changes to election and charity laws have been introduced to eliminate teals, some see a bright side to the threat these changes also pose to what they see as the C200’s stranglehold on the ecosystem surrounding independents.

“Perhaps (these new laws) will be the accidental catalyst for a new, centrist movement that prioritizes collaboration, integrity and real representation,” Berowra (NSW) independent candidate Tina Brown told MWM.

C200, on the other hand, sees no need for change and wants to remain “part of a vibrant and decentralized movement of community independents.”

Unlike political parties, it is a bottom-up rather than top-down movement and operates without power structures.

a spokesman said.

However, there is a revival of the “voices” of grassroots groups in seats such as Bennelong (NSW), Kooyong (Vic.) Solomon (NT) and Kingsford Smith (NSW); It’s part of an effort to get back to the basics that brought Teals so much success in 2022.

“We are at a crossroads,” Atwood concluded.