Climate 200 outspends Federal Government on social media ads but founder insists it’s ‘not a campaign’

Simon Holmes a Court’s Climate 200 has outspent the Australian Government on social media advertising over the past month, splashing more than $455,000.

Despite this, the businessman insisted it was not the same thing as running a political campaign during an appearance at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.

The fundraising body that backs so-called teal independents has spent $329,786 on Facebook and Instagram ads over the past 30 days, according to data from social media parent company Meta.

Ads include a series of videos flooding women’s Instagram feeds over the past week to coincide with International Women’s Day, highlighting the 28 female candidates Climate 200 is backing in the looming Federal election.

Another series of ads promotes Mr Homes a Court’s appearance at a Climate Action Week event in Sydney, while a set still running attacks Peter Dutton’s “climate bomb” plan for nuclear power.

Climate 200 spent another $49,800 on Google ads, while its affiliated pages Independent News and Liberals for Independents spent a combined $76,180

The organisation outspent official Australian Government advertising — which has been running at record high levels — on Meta over the month.

Climate 200 also more than doubled the WA Liberals’ spending on social media ads for the month of the election campaign (total $173,624) and was close to the $431,741 WA Labor-affiliated pages spent.

On Saturday — WA’s election day — Climate 200 outspent Roger Cook’s Facebook page by $1500 and spent $5460 more than the WA Liberals, WA Nationals and Federal Liberal Party combined.

Mr Holmes a Court insisted his operation was “small fry” compared with the tens of millions spent by the major political parties nationally.

“Climate 200 does not start campaigns. Climate 200 does not run campaigns. Climate 200 does not target seats or select candidates,” he told the National Press Club.

Pushed on how that assertion gelled with Climate 200’s ad campaigns, he said they were different.

“When I said we don’t run campaigns, I mean, we don’t run electoral campaigns for candidates,” Mr Holmes a Court said.

“We don’t get into the weeds and run any of those campaigns. They run themselves.

“We run advertising campaigns to lift the salience of issues or to make people aware of independents.”

Independents across the country spent a collective $25 million ahead of the 2022 election, $13 million of which came from Climate 200.

Labor spent about $116 million while the Coalition spent $132 million during the campaign.

Mr Holmes a Court painted that as a David and Goliath battle, notwithstanding his current ad spend.

“We help people to build an amazing slingshot. We help people climb the wall of incumbency, that they recently just put a moat around and pulled up the drawbridge to Parliament,” he said.

“Put it in perspective of the entire electoral scheme and we are small fry.”

New electoral financing laws passed in February — which take effect after the imminent campaign — will effectively smash Climate 200’s business model of aggregating small donations and distributing the money to candidates.

Caps on donations will limit its ability to funnel the money to different candidates while separate caps restrict spending in any one seat to $800,000. Parties have a nationwide spending limit of $90 million while third-party entities like Climate 200 can spend $11 million.

The attitude from the Government has been that Climate 200 could register as a political party if it wants to operate a party-like centralised financing model.

Mr Holmes a Court said that would never happen.

“I have zero interest in being involved in any party structure. I can’t see how it would actually benefit Climate 200,” he said.

“And certainly, I’m not sure that any of the independents would want anything to do with it.”

The Nightly last month raised questions about major Climate 200 donor Marcus Catasaras.

The 31-year-old had donated more than $2 million to the organisation over the past three financial years.

Mr Holmes a Court said the party vetted donors to make sure they met Australian Electoral Commission rules banning foreign money and interference.

All donors were also clear their money didn’t mean they would get to sit down with an MP or candidate — unlike the major parties.

“This model of cash for access and pay to play just doesn’t exist in this movement, and it’s incredibly refreshing that I’m speaking with donors who, like me, have a radical trust in this new form of democracy,” he said.