Can money be removed from politics?

The South Australian election on 21 March 2026 was a landmark moment in democratic design: it was the first time in Australia that an election campaign has been funded almost entirely through public money.

The Electoral (Accountability and Integrity) Amendment Act 2024, in force since July 2025, fundamentally restructured how political competition is financed. It has been described as "world-leading" in its attempt to remove private money from politics.

The legislation makes it unlawful for political parties, candidates, or MPs to receive electoral donations. Instead, public funding replaces private contributions, supplemented by strict expenditure caps and enhanced disclosure rules.

Public funding is distributed largely on the basis of electoral support. Parties receive payments per vote (for example, around $6 per vote up to a threshold), with funding capped at actual campaign expenditure. Additional streams include administrative funding, policy development grants, and advance payments to assist new entrants.

Certain new entrants and non-incumbents will be allowed to accept electoral donations subject to donation caps, including an individual donation limit of $5,000.

The reforms also regulate the political expenditure of third parties including businesses, unions and think tanks, with groups wanting to influence the outcome of an election subject to an expenditure cap of $450,000.

In effect, it is an attempt to create a closed financial ecosystem for elections: no private donations, controlled spending, and taxpayer-funded campaigns.

The policy has long been advocated by the Greens, who argue that the only reason they are unable to win elections is because their opponents spend more money.

Libertarians argue that it is not the government's role to dictate how people choose to spend their own money, including contributing to the promotion of their preferred political party or viewpoint. While it might be tantalising to consider that the taxes of Greens voters are helping to fund One Nation's campaign expenses, it is also true in reverse.

The rationale for public funding is to eliminate the perception (and reality) of political influence tied to money. Large donations have long raised concerns about access, lobbying power, and policy bias. The South Australian government explicitly framed the reform as a way to ensure decisions are made "because they're the right thing to do", rather than in response to donors.

By banning donations entirely, the reform goes further than most jurisdictions, which typically rely on caps and disclosure rules. In theory, this removes a key pathway for corruption.

There is also a goal of restoring trust in democratic institutions. If voters believe elections are not "for sale", confidence in outcomes may increase. Public funding signals that elections are a public good rather than a marketplace.