Climate 200’s cash splash against election caps revealed as movement spends big on campaigns

Specific advertising campaigns against laws the Teals don’t like are part of hundreds of thousands of dollars the movement is pumping into Google and Facebook.

Climate 200 spent thousands of dollars on targeted advertisements unsuccessfully pressuring politicians to vote against election donation caps, in a bid to protect their ability to launch cashed-up campaigns against the major parties.

The multimillion-dollar political group ploughed up to $8,000 on ads railing against proposed changes to election spending laws, according to analysis of spending on Meta – which owns Facebook and Instagram.

The advertisements were geo-targeted at Canberra from November 27 to 28, when politicians from across the country were at Parliament House, as speculation mounted that Labor and the Coalition were about to reach a deal over the reforms which would severely limit how much could be spent in each seat.

The specific ad appeared to pressure MPs to rethink the proposed changes – with the ads stating ‘Coalition self-sabotaging by supporting (Labor’s) electoral reforms’.

The new laws – which will cap the amount of cash any lower house candidate will be able to spend in one seat at $800,000 – will come into effect at the 2028 election.

Multi-millionaire Simon Holmes A Court maintains Climate 200 doesn’t run campaigns for candidates. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman

The campaign is part of a monstrous spend on online advertising as Climate 200 ramps up their bid for a second successive Teal wave after their 2022 campaign successfully targeted inner-city Liberal strongholds.

Analysis of the most recent spending information on Meta shows Climate 200 splashed more than $10,000 a day on ads in the last month, with $308,316 spent between February 14 and March 15.

Their spend in that period outpaced Western Australian Premier Roger Cook, who paid almost $190,000 during his state election campaign, the Liberal Party ($147,777) and the Australian Government ($235,033).

Google ads show the group has already splashed $25,400 on online advertising in March, off the back of $42,900 in February.

Coalition home affairs spokesman Senator James Paterson said Climate 200 was operating in a similar fashion to “American-style” big money campaigns.

Nicolette Boele, pictured with Simon Holmes a Court, who is gunning for Bradfield.

“Working Australians would be shocked to learn Climate 200 poured big money into a covert online advertising campaign geo-targeted to hit the Parliamentary precinct in an attempt to influence votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate,” he said.

Mr Holmes A Court, after declaring last week Climate 200 doesn’t “run campaigns”, clarified he meant specific candidates’ campaigns – meaning advertising campaigns were fair game.

“When I said we don’t run campaigns, we don’t run electoral campaigns for candidates … we do run advertising campaigns to lift the salience of issues or to make people aware of independents,” he said.

Bolstering the war chest of the group are direct appeals from Mr Holmes A Court, with a message written by the millionaire last week appealing for more donations to help knock off the Liberals in key Sydney seat Bradfield.

“(Teal candidate) Nicolette (Boele) has a really good shot at winning Paul Fletcher’s seat (polling … has her neck and neck) but they’re feeling the pinch of the longer election with some urgent payments coming up. Can’t cover it as it stands, $1m (has been) sent to campaigns in the last 10 days!” he wrote in an email to Climate 200 supporters late last week.

Originally published as Climate 200’s cash splash against election caps revealed as movement spends big on campaigns