Follow the money: the organisations that spent the most on social media during the election
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
41 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Energy bills to increase by 13 per cent in August
Australian households will face an electricity bill increase under new changes by power retailer AGL. New South Wales customers will experience increases of 13 per cent from August, which would result in an extra $267 for median usage. The federal government announced in its federal budget this year for more rebates for households to begin in the new financial year.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Alarming reason living standards could fall
The World Bank has sounded the alarm predicting global growth is on track for its weakest year since the global financial crisis and worst decade since the 1960s, but Australia could once again prove to be the lucky country. Analysis released this week by the World Bank predicts global growth will slow to 2.3 per cent in 2025, down from 2.8 per cent this time last year. This is a downgrade of 0.4 per cent since the start of the year. If the World Bank's forecasts come true, this would be the weakest period outside of the worldwide recessionary periods of the GFC from 2007-2009 and the Covid pandemic at the beginning of the decade. Living standards could fall if the World Bank's forecast comes true. NewsWire / John Appleyard Credit: News Corp Australia This follows similar downgrades to growth from the International Monetary Fund, which in April said global growth would slump from 3.3 to 2.8 per cent, while expecting Australia's GDP to drop to just 1.6 per cent. While the OECD also believes growth will slow from 3.3 per cent in 2024 to 2.9 per cent in both the 2025 and 2026 calendar year. The World Bank predicts this could impact everyday people for years to come. 'Without a swift course correction, the harm to living standards could be deep,' the report said. 'International discord – about trade, in particular – has up-ended many of the policy certainties that helped shrink extreme poverty and expand prosperity after the end of World War II. 'This year alone, our forecasts indicate the upheaval will slice nearly half a percentage point off the global GDP growth rate.' WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR THE AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY? Australia is not immune to any slowdown in global growth, but it is unlikely to drag us into a recession. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver told NewsWire weaker global growth would affect the Australian economy in three main ways. 'Firstly, weaker global growth means less demand for Australia's exports in terms of volume,' he said. 'Secondly, it will potentially mean lower commodity prices which means lower national income. 'Thirdly, a hit to confidence. People in Australia hear what is going on in the rest of the world which means they are less likely to spend whether they are a consumer or a business.' Australian consumers could spend less due to an economic stressful time. Credit: News Corp Australia, NewsWire/ Monique Harmer Previously in times of economic stress, the Australian economy has been bailed out by its commodities as other nations stimulate their economy, but this time around Dr Oliver says 'it gets harder' as the world won't stimulate the economy as hard. 'The IMF, OECD and the World Bank have all revised down growth but it's not negative, so it's not a debilitating shock or a global recession in a technical sense,' he said. 'There's no need for the government or the RBA to come to the rescue like it did during the GFC or the pandemic.' Even though the Australian economy as a whole is tipped to slow, with Dr Oliver forecasting growth of around 1.6 per cent for the calendar year, there is a bright spot for homeowners. 'I think it is likely the Reserve Bank will likely cut interest rates more than they would've thought this year and why growth in Australia won't get above 2 per cent,' Dr Oliver said. WHY IS GROWTH SLOWING Without naming names, the World Bank is blaming the fallout from US President Donald Trump's trade policies. As part of his American first initiative, Mr Trump announced a raft of tariff policies across sectors and countries. On April 2 Mr Trump announced 'cheating' countries who ran a significant trade surplus with the United States were hit with 'reciprocal tariffs', while every country including Australia is being slapped with the 'base tariff' of 10 per cent. Through negotiations, these tariff rates have changed, but countries including China are facing total tariffs of around 55 per cent. While the entire 138-page report fails to mention US President Donald Trump's tariff policy, it makes clear trade tensions, global instability and a reversal of current trade policies are the main reasons why they are sounding the alarm. 'The forces behind the great economic miracle over the last 50 years which drove more than one billion people out of extreme poverty have swung into reverse,' it wrote. In order to correct the course, the World Bank says countries need to rebuild trade relations. 'The evidence is clear: economic co-operation is better than any of the alternatives – for all parties,' the World Bank's report said. 'Our analysis suggests that if today's trade disputes were resolved with agreements that halve tariffs relative to their levels in late May, 2025, global growth could be stronger by about 0.2 percentage point on average over the course of 2025 and 2026.'
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Stump up and be a man': Pesutto slammed for asking party donors to ‘bail' him out on lawsuit
Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman says former Victorian Opposition leader John Pesutto needs to 'stump up' and 'be a man' in paying back Victorian Liberal MP Moira Deeming. 'I think she was treated terribly by Pesutto,' Mr Newman told Sky News host Steve Price. 'I think that Pesutto shouldn't be being protected by Jeff Kennett and other people. 'He has made terrible errors of judgement, he needs to pay the price, and if the price of that's to go bankrupt, so be it. 'You shouldn't be tapping party donors to try and bail a guy out. 'He needs to pay his bills.'
