NM investigates
21 Apr 2011
Keep Carmel 'Broke Funding Law'
The NSW Greens will lodge a complaint today about the Keep_Carmel twitter campaign, claiming it broke the legal limit on political donations, report Wendy Bacon and Nicole Gooch
The NSW Greens will lodging a complaint today to the NSW Electoral Funding Authority about a Labor social media campaign donated to Marrickville member Carmel Tebbutt, claiming it broke the legal limit on political donations.
The Keep_Carmel twitter campaign was donated by One Small Planet, an unregistered business founded by ex One.Tel director Brad Keeling.
The NSW electoral laws limit in-kind donations for advertising to $1000. The donation was first revealed by New Matilda earlier this month.
A spokesperson for NSW Labor told the Sydney Morning Herald this week that it would be declared as a donation of $1000.
When New Matilda spoke to Keeling two weeks ago, he said "It was definitely a commercial arrangement". However, he said that he could not discuss how it would be declared as he didn’t know how it was classified from the Tebbutt campaign’s perspective. Tebbutt campaign director, member of the NSW Legislative Council Penny Sharpe, declined to comment to New Matilda on how Keep_Carmel would be declared.
New Matilda’s attention was first drawn to the campaign when Keeling posted a case study on the success of the unofficial Keep_Carmel twitter campaign shortly after Tebbutt claimed the seat on a two-party preferred basis of less than 800 votes.
Greens spokesman John Kaye said, "We are asking the EFA to investigate both the commercial value of the in-kind donation in relation to the $1000 cap in the Act and also the absence of an ABN. The law requires corporate donors to hold an ABN and we understand that One Small Planet does not." (ABN is an Australian Business Number and is required by all businesses offering services in NSW).
"The laws limiting donations were a first step towards driving money out of politics and putting the voters back in charge of the state. Every time the caps are ignored, NSW takes a step backwards toward democracy for sale."
In the case study and when interviewed by New Matilda, Keeling specifically said that he offered the service to campaign staff, who would not have had the time or resources to do it themselves. He said such a campaign must be done full-time, as it could not be done "half-heartedly".
The nearly 370 tweets show that he, as team leader on the campaign advertising account, or an employee of the team, was tweeting during live debates and on election day. The team also helped organise media coverage on the day that the SMH and Kevin Rudd were in the Marrickville electorate. Keeling said their work also involved monitoring the NSW election twitter conversation.
Yesterday, after the SMH report appeared, Keeling tweeted @johnkaye and an ABC journalist offering to share his rates. He tweeted to another ABC journalist asking how many tweets he had published this year.
Brad Keeling tweets in response to allegations about the cost of the Keep_Carmel campaign. |
Some of those commenting on the Keep_Carmel story have assumed that the costing will include only the time taken to type the tweets. This is a misunderstanding. The One Small Planet campaign was a commercial service which included time taken to plan, research and summarise scores of press releases. The team also responded to public enquiries, monitored and retweeted media coverage, prepared and tweeted photos, communicated with journalists and live tweeted during events. The campaign began in early February and ended after Tebbutt claimed victory. Keeling told New Matilda that the campaign was run from his office, the "tweet centre", which is run like a call centre. Part of the strategy involved developing a "tone of voice" that was a "well informed advocate" for the Tebbutt campaign.
Kaye said, "The @keep_carmel controversy is relatively small beer but if the EFA fails to investigate properly, the message to future campaigns will be that it is ok to subvert the caps and deliver large donations through understating the value of services."
Like this article? Register as a New Matilda user here. It’s free! We’ll send you a bi-weekly email keeping you up to date with new stories on the site.
Want more independent media? New Matilda stays online thanks to reader donations. To become a financial supporter, click here.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
First class bit of journalism from start to finish … but then it’s not is it?
I agree ladies, it should be stomped on from a great height and hard.
The victims here aren’t the greens, they simply lost but are the VOTERS of Marrickville.
As sure as corruption follows graft you can bet on, that in next election there will be a plethora of small breaches. The question is what is the threshold before the legal boom is actually lowered?
And to think people wondered why there was so many scandals.
How many others are yet to be discovered?
If I were the judge I’d add extra penalty for:
- boasting about what was apparently an illegal act.
- for seeking to profit further from this illegal act.
I’d make their wallets cry.
The member and her knowing advisor should pay too.
Perhaps it might even show a profit for the states budget :-)
Hmmm another Bacon special on New Matilda, and how surprising an angle it takes. Surely there should be a disclaimer somewhere? I imagine this beat-up will go nowhere and, truly, if it tastes like sour grapes, it is sour grapes.
I am interested in twitter and politics and so I checked out the keepcarmel one - that tweet you have in the picture is right: someone probably was doing it in their coffee break. Not worth $100 let alone $1000. What. A. Joke. If anyone reckons it shifted any votes I’d love to hear how. The Greens lost the election there for a number of other reasons even though they ran a strong campaign, but, aside from Bob Brown, none of them, including Ms Bacon, will admit it.
When even the rabid-mouthed John Kaye says “The @keep_carmel controversy is relatively small beer”, you know it’s only trying to light a wet firecracker in a snowstorm. Just like this article.
Oh well. I’m off to see what’s on Crikey.
Since the only people who follow political tweets are either staffers of rivals or journalists, you’d have to say that the claim 370 tweets swung the election was a sign of dementia setting in inside the Greens Marrickville bunker, nothing else. And some uni media people are determined to trash their reputations too, what a shame, all in the name of what? Bitterness? Sour grapes?
I wonder if New Matilda is gong to set its crack investigative team on those 16 giant “Real Change” Greens billboards in the inner west and countless illuminated bus shelter posters spruiking the Horny Goat Weed seller who won Balmain on 205 preferences? Any volunteers? Nah, didn’t think so…
Will82, usual suspect,
You may well be right about the vote changing effect but I think you missed the real issue and the probable consequences .
Usual sus,
Frankly “they did it too” comparisons are tawdry red herrings not an argument of innocence. Likewise so is claims of bias in this instance.
Facts are facts.
Especially give that BREACHING TO LAW was the topic.
How do you know that either of the examples are BREACHES of anything? Seriously did you actually think about the issue…Nah, I didn’t think so.
I also doubt that the Green’s actions will achieve anything substantive but for the sake of democracy I hope so.
Does it matter that it was the GREENS specifically that did this… not that much, however the point is than none of the majors are prepared to do anything for the Integrity of election funding SHOULD tell the public how compromised they are.
Will this article change votes (the point of party bias)? Nah, I don’t think so.
“They did it too – not an argument of innocence” I couldn’t agree more, Examinator. But where have I said anyone was “innocent” of anything? Why would I argue that? Why would I defend Carmel Tebutt? I’m not, you have assumed so. Did “they” do it too?
And I didn’t say anyone has breached anything. You did. I only suspected after some very easy calculations based on inside knowledge of the advertising industry. So did the Greens exceed per-electoralte cap regulations in Balmain in Marrickville with that massive outdoor spend?
Will anyone bother to investigate? No they won’t, because no one except the Greens in Marrickville are fuelled by bitterness and sour grapes at losing the unlosable seat.
16 prominently exposed billboards plus illuminated posters on Sydney’s most trafficked throughfares vs a couple of tweets. “Tawdry” comparison… Yep, sure is.
So.
Did it ‘break funding law’ or not?
Can you back up that headline with any substance?
We’re still waiting.