Can money be removed from politics?

Another claimed benefit is greater equality between political competitors. Campaigns are no longer dependent on access to wealthy donors or corporate backing. In theory, this should make elections more about ideas and policies than financial resources.

The inclusion of advance payments for new parties and candidates is also significant, as it aims to reduce barriers to entry and encourage political diversity.

Despite its ambitions, evidence from the South Australian election suggests several complications. One is the shift of political spending to non-party structures. While parties cannot accept donations, third-party campaigners can still raise funds and spend within regulated limits. This is similar to "Super PACs" in America, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations to spend on advertising, provided they do not directly coordinate with a candidate's campaign.

Such groups are likely to become major players in Australian election campaigns, raising concerns about transparency and accountability. Banning donations to parties does not eliminate money from politics; it simply redirects it.

Public funding tied to vote share also tends to favour larger, established parties. A large majority of public funding flows to major parties, with only a small fraction reaching new entrants. This will reduce competition rather than enhance it.

The transition to a donation-free system introduces legal and administrative complexity. Questions have already arisen about what constitutes a donation versus a campaign expense, as illustrated by controversies over privately funded travel during the campaign.

The South Australian experiment has implications beyond the state. It represents one of the most comprehensive attempts globally to remove private money from electoral politics. If successful, the model could influence reforms at the federal level or in other states. Public funding systems already exist in many democracies, but few have gone as far as banning donations entirely.

The reforms aim to shift the basis of political competition away from financial capacity. However, it also highlights that money remains integral to politics, even if its channels change. That raises the question of whether the broader ecosystem of political communication is actually more important.

Further, the reforms raise fundamental questions about the balance between equality and freedom. Strict controls on funding and spending may enhance perceptions of fairness, but they also limit how individuals and groups participate in political debate.

Full public funding of election expenses is a bold attempt to reshape democratic practice. Its core promise – to remove the influence of private money and restore trust – addresses longstanding concerns in modern politics.

However, while the reform reduces certain risks, it curtails individual freedoms and introduces new challenges. Ultimately, it shows that public funding is not a simple solution but a trade-off. It can reduce direct financial influence on politicians, but has unintended consequences. As other jurisdictions watch this experiment, its long-term impact will be crucial in determining whether full public funding represents the future of democratic elections or is yet another imposition on liberty.