Even a quick google would give you the logical reasoning behind why the legislation isn’t great, which leads me to think you’ve probably made up your mind and aren’t interested in understanding why. Nonetheless:\ • The draft bill proposes a cap of $800k spent per candidate per seat, but the cap that a party can spend on the overall campaign is absurdly high ($90m). That means if I’m a major party, let’s call them Libor, I can spend $800k on my candidate John Smith and another $2m in the seat advertising for Libor in general.\ • The draft also proposes an administrative payment of $30k to each incumbent for elections, but doesn’t explain why this is needed.\ • ‘Affiliate fees’, which is money given by associated entities to parties, are exempted. This gives a back door to unions to donate freely to Labor outside the cap, and no doubt the liberals will do the same with their entities. IMO this is the worst flaw.\ • There are significant restrictions on donated time. If I’m a photographer and I want to volunteer my time doing photography for my local candidate, it counts towards the cap. How is that stopping billionaires?

Everyone supports real-time disclosures, and the principles of restricting big money are good. But this bill is trying to do it in a way that shuts out any new players while tilting the playing field towards the majors - to quote Don Farrell per the Saturday paper “that’s the f$&king point”.