Follow the money: the organisations that spent the most on social media during the election
The Advertiser20-05-2025
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Social media advertising is an increasingly important frontier in election campaigns.
Political parties, candidates and third-party groups - such as trade unions, industry bodies and interest groups - all spend big to push their message high into the algorithms of potential voters.
In the 2025 Australian federal election, this spend has been estimated at around A$40 million across the Meta- and Google-owned digital media platforms.
Based on our analysis of data from the Meta Ad Library - part of a broader research project on third sector groups (not political parties or candidates) during the election - third party groups spent more than $7.5 million advertising on Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram from March 28 to May 3 - the date the election was called to polling day.
Understanding which of these groups spent what, and on what, offers insights into the election results and modern political campaigning generally.
During the election campaign, much media commentary focused on right-wing organisation Advance Australia's digital campaigning.
However, our analysis shows pro-Liberal/National Party groups were outspent on Meta (which owns Facebook) almost 3:1 by anti-Liberal groups.
Much of this was focused on workers' rights, or in opposition to the Coalition's nuclear energy policy.
The top 25 spending groups on Meta spent just more than $6 million between them, at a rate of around $6500 a day. The rate of spending increased steadily during the campaign, with the bulk of the spend (more than $4 million) occurring in the final two weeks.
On May 2, the day before the election, these 25 big spenders paid on average $16,622 to push their message on Meta social media platforms.
Conservative campaign group Advance Australia spent just less than $50,000 on Meta on the final day of the campaign (social media advertising is exempt from the two-day ad-blackout laws affecting traditional media operators).
Advance was the biggest third-party campaigning group on Meta during the election, spending more than $1 million during the campaign's 37 days.
Advance's left-wing competitor during the campaign was the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), which spent around $475,000 on Meta advertising across the campaign, including more than $52,000 on May 2.
While the ACTU spent less than half of Advance's spend across Meta during the campaign, it spent three times as much on YouTube/Google advertising. Data from the Google Ad Transparency Center reveals the ACTU spent $928,000 on the platform between March 28 and May 3, whereas Advance spent $296,000 during the same period.
The other two big Meta spenders the day before polling day highlight the key policy contest among third party organisations - the Coalition's proposal to introduce nuclear powered energy to Australia.
Nuclear for Australia was the biggest spender on Meta on May 2, spending more than $65,000 in one day. Its direct counterpoint, Liberals Against Nuclear, spent a touch more than $32,000 on the same day.
However, during the whole campaign, Liberals Against Nuclear spent more ($246,000 compared to Nuclear for Australia's $236,000).
An anti-nuclear message was particularly prominent across the top 25 spending groups on Meta. Of the 15 organisations we identified as being explicitly anti-Liberal, nine were climate organisations with an anti-nuclear message.
These nine organisations spent a total of $2.5 million across Meta during the course of the campaign.
The most significant of these was Climate 200, which spent almost $900,000 on Meta during the election campaign.
Another key anti-nuclear nuclear campaigner on Meta was Climate Action Network Australia (CANA), which spent almost $400,000 between March 28 and May 3 across two different Facebook pages, and Hothouse Magazine, which spent almost $300,000 on pro-renewables advertising.
Together, the 15 explicitly anti-Liberal groups spent more than $3.6 million during the election, far eclipsing the two clear pro-Liberal groups, Advance Australia and Nuclear for Australia, which spent around $1.3 million between them.
So, what insights might these findings offer into the election results?
There certainly appears to be a correlation between the historic low Coalition vote and the outspending of pro-Liberal entities on Meta.
Outside of Advance and Nuclear for Australia's Meta campaigning, big-spending right-wing groups such as Australians for Prosperity, Better Australia and Australian Taxpayer's Alliance seemed more singularly focused on tearing down the Greens and Climate 200-backed independents than on helping the Coalition win government.
In contrast, the anti-Dutton and anti-nuclear focus of the anti-Liberal third party spending has a degree of collective discipline about it, which is probably indicative of the strength of the workers' rights and climate movements in Australia.
Additionally, the climate movement's strong anti-nuclear campaign may have presented a message which glossed over Labor's climate failures during the previous term.
This may have sent some pro-climate voters to Labor rather than to the Greens or Climate 200 independents. For their part, these organisations appeared to campaign more around the opportunities of a possible minority government than on environmental issues.
Civil society actors such as trade unions and industry groups have a long history of involvement in Australian politics.
The increasing non-major party vote, now around a third of all voters, means there are now more voices in our democratic processes.
This in turn creates more opportunities for third party organisations to influence policy debate and election outcomes.
Mark Riboldi is a lecturer in social impact and social change at the University of Technology Sydney.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Bonds, Sheridan and Berlei back on the block in Hanes strategic review
High-profile Australian clothing and homeware brands including Bonds, Sheridan and Berlei could be sold after the American giant that acquired them almost a decade ago agreed to a $3.3 billion merger. Hanesbrands purchased Pacific Brands in 2016 after several years of pain for the ASX-listed apparel maker, which had written off more than $1.5 billion and sold businesses such as Hard Yakka workwear and Volley shoes.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Diplomatic mess': Prime Minister Anthony Albanese continues to 'pick and choose' what Hamas propaganda to run with
The Prime Minister has demonstrated a "pick and choose" approach to what Hamas propaganda he wants to believe, Sky News host Chris Kenny has said. After Mr Albanese's move to recognise Palestine was from the office of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef for his 'political courage', Mr Albanese then quoted a statement from Hamas on Thursday to suggest Yousef had 'no means of communication', alleging it was impossible for the terrorist leader to give the quote. The Prime Minister said it 'should be a warning to the media' to be careful as 'Hamas will engage in propaganda'. A short time after, the Sydney Morning Herald clarified that it had received the statement from Yousef's office in Beitunia in the West Bank which 'issues statements on his behalf'. Sky News host Chris Kenny admonished the Prime Minister on Thursday and claimed Mr Albanese had gone along with the 'narrative promulgated by Hamas' in the demonisation of Israel and 'wild claims' of the events in Gaza, such as the alleged mass starvation. 'Now Albo has leapt upon another statement from Hamas saying Yousef didn't issue the statement because he's in an Israeli prison. Well yes, the terrorist leader has been in and out of prison but Nine media, who sourced the original statement, say it came from his office in the West Bank,' Kenny said. 'So all this had our Prime Minister today trying to blame the media for his diplomatic mess. 'Albanese knows his own office and those of other politicians constantly issue statements on behalf of their leaders. And how can he now pick and choose which propaganda statements from Hamas he believes and which he doesn't?' Kenny said Mr Albanese had been 'so reckless' in buying Hamas' narrative and that he had inadvertently fed them a 'propaganda victory' 'Just about everything Albanese has said about Gaza from casualty numbers and claims of deliberate starvation, responses to orchestrated and misleading photographs, it's all been parroting the Hamas propaganda that's amplified by the media,' Kenny said. In a separate statement to the ABC on Thursday, the terror group's official media spokesperson praised the Prime Minister's decision. "We welcome Australia's decision to recognise the state of Palestine, and consider it a positive step towards the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people," Hamas media director Ismail Al-Thawabta said. 'Such a move reflects a growing global awareness of the necessity to end the injustice suffered by our people for decades. 'We call on the Australian government to translate this recognition into concrete actions — by exerting diplomatic pressure to end the Israeli occupation." The group added that 'while recognition has come late' the move was 'better late than never.'
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
US disappointed by Australia's plan to recognise Palestine
The US Ambassador to Israel says Australia's plan to recognise Palestine was met with disgust by the Trump administration. Mike Huckabee says there was an enormous level of disappointment around Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's call. He believes the decision by Australia and other countries, including the UK and France, could push Israel towards annexing the West Bank. It could place more pressure on Australian Ambassador to the US Kevin Rudd as he tries to negotiate a meeting between Anthony Albanese and Donald Trump.
