Our say: ‘Teal’ critics ignore bigger picture about modern election campaigns

Calling into question the independence of candidates that accept outside donations plays into the hand of the major parties, and ignores the state of ‘pay to play’ political campaigns.

Simon Holmes à Court created Climate 200, which funds independent candidates.

If you want to talk about one of the major issues in politics, you just need to follow the money.

It’s undoubtedly one of the core problems plaguing modern political campaigns – one the parties have agreed to curb with law changes that passed only a couple of months ago.

And there are some positive changes, including reducing the disclosure threshold to $5000.

But you don’t have to look too hard to find plenty of secret money still sloshed around, the beneficiary of which is largely the major parties.

More than $25m of donations that landed under the $16,300 disclosure requirement flowed to the Labor Party in the 2023-24 financial year, while nearly $35m flowed to Coalition branches.

That’s without mentioning the significant public backers of these parties, which also totals in the millions.

So I ask the critics of independent candidates some label ‘teals’ – why is this money not a problem, but any funding from Climate 200 is?

It is true Climate 200 is a political organisation with a clearly defined agenda, which you may or may not agree with.

The Australian Electoral Commission has designated it a ‘significant third party’.

It is true they have provided funding for many candidates across the country, and it is important all of these candidates are transparent about where their money comes from.

The uncomfortable truth is it’s no different to a litany of organisations that pump the coffers of the major parties.

Any move to uncover all of these covert donations is welcome, but it also must be noted will not apply to this election.

To suggest a candidate running as an independent can’t accept any donations without calling into question their ‘independence’ just plays into the hand of the major parties.

They can’t win – you either have to fund a campaign by yourself at great expense, or they are criticised for not being a ‘real independent’.

Setting these candidates up to fail is bad for democracy – no matter what your politics are.

If you bemoan the state of ‘pay to play’ politics, direct your anger to the major parties who have created this system.

Criticise the game, not the player.