One of the government’s latest pieces of legislation to be rushed through Parliament is a new law regarding donations to political campaigns.

On the surface, this move is commendable. We don’t want to become like the United States, where the average campaign for the House of Representatives costs over US$1 million. It’s vital for our democracy to have a system where candidates aren’t reliant on major donors to win elections.

But do the new campaign financing laws achieve that goal? Or are they, instead, designed to entrench the two-party system while masquerading as reforms intended to reduce the influence of money in politics?

The legislation does two key things. First, it caps individual donations at $50,000 and lowers the disclosure threshold to $5,000.

It’s noteworthy that most independents wanted the disclosure threshold to be set at $1,000, considerably lower. A lower disclosure threshold allows anyone to see where donations are coming from. This transparency is crucial because it prevents politicians from making decisions based on donations. For example, it wouldn’t look good if an MP blocked a piece of legislation after receiving significant donations from individuals connected to that legislation.

The second key aspect of the legislation is that it caps spending on any one campaign at $800,000 per electorate, and $90 million nationally.

If $800,000 sounds like a lot, you’re right, it is a substantial amount, but only if everyone is on an even playing field. The problem with this legislation is that it fails to create such a level playing field.

First, it allows the parties to campaign in the electorate outside of the $800,000 limit. As long as they don’t explicitly campaign for a particular candidate, they can flood a contested electorate with messages urging constituents to “vote Labor” or “vote Liberal,” alongside the candidate’s own campaign efforts. Independents, who lack a party structure, cannot engage in the same manner.

Secondly, and perhaps more troublingly, peak bodies such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Business Council of Australia can set aside up to $200,000, four times the new donations cap from affiliated unions or members to fund national campaigns.

This provision allows them to continue hosting $10,000-a-head dinners with politicians without disclosing who attended or what access they were buying.

The purpose of campaign financing laws is twofold.

First, they should provide transparency: Who is funding campaigns, and what do they expect in return? There’s nothing inherently wrong with donating to a political campaign. In fact, we argue that supporting political campaigns is essential, especially if the candidate or campaign aligns with your beliefs. It’s a vital way to help ensure your candidate gets into power (you can also volunteer, advocate, and contribute in many other ways).

Second, these laws should create an even playing field so that no candidate enters an election with an unfair advantage. This is challenging, as incumbents often have advantages over challengers, and public figures may have advantages over lesser-known candidates. However, financing laws can and should help level the playing field.

These new laws do neither of those things. Instead, they entrench the power of the major parties and limit the impact of the growing movement towards supporting independent or minor party candidates.

It’s not just independents or minor parties that should be concerned; it’s all Australian voters. Major parties are essentially saying, “We see that you’re dissatisfied with us, so instead of listening and improving, we’re going to make it harder for the candidates you actually want to vote for to succeed.”

That’s a disappointing reality for us all.