How Advance ‘siphoned’ funds and helped the Liberals lose | 7am

Summary

The Australian lobby group Advance, with its $15.6 million war chest, failed to influence the federal election despite aggressive campaigning. Targeting Labor and the Greens, Advance used slogans like 'weak, woke, and sending us broke' but ultimately didn’t shift voter opinions. While the group succeeded in the referendum against the Indigenous Voice, its tactics didn’t translate into success in the election. Internal frustrations within the Liberal Party, which felt siphoned funds and ineffective messaging, have raised doubts about the future of Advance's political relevance and its alignment with the Liberal Party.

Takeaways

• 😀 Advance, a right-wing lobby group, poured over $15 million into the election campaign targeting Labor and the Greens, yet failed to achieve the desired impact.
• 😀 Advance's campaign used aggressive messaging, including slogans like 'weak, woke, and sending us broke' to attack Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his government.
• 😀 Advance's messaging strategy was largely based on themes from the Voice referendum campaign, which focused on issues like Indigenous reconciliation and cost of living.
• 😀 Despite the large amount of money spent on the campaign, Advance's strategy failed to significantly shift voter support, and Labor gained 17 seats, marking their best-ever federal result.
• 😀 Experts suggest that Advance's failure to separate the 'No' vote from general opposition to Albanese's government led to their lack of success in influencing the election outcome.
• 😀 The group's campaign tactics, which mirrored the messaging of former U.S. president Donald Trump, inadvertently alienated some right-leaning voters, who shifted their support to more extreme parties like One Nation.
• 😀 Inside the Liberal Party, there was frustration as Advance siphoned resources away from their own campaign, weakening their chances of getting their message through to undecided voters.
• 😀 Despite Advance's lack of success, the group continues to emphasize its influence on the referendum campaign and seeks to reassure supporters, particularly by maintaining its fundraising efforts.
• 😀 Advance's future political relevance is uncertain, as their tactics may not be as effective in Australia's compulsory voting system, where turning out voters is less of a challenge compared to the U.S.
• 😀 While Advance has strong ties to the far-right faction of the Liberal Party, internal conflicts between the party's moderate and right-wing members could shape the future role of both Advance and the Liberal Party in upcoming elections.

Q & A

What was the primary reason behind Advance's failure to influence the election results?

Advance's campaign failed to shift voters as it relied heavily on themes from the Voice referendum, assuming that no voters would also oppose the Albanese government in the federal election. However, many voters separated the two issues, which weakened Advance's impact.

How much money did Advance invest in the election campaign, and how did it allocate these funds?

Advance invested over $15 million into the election campaign, with $1.7 million specifically spent on advertising through platforms like Google and Meta. They also ran a nationwide television and billboard campaign targeting the Albanese government and the Australian Greens.

Why was Advance's slogan 'weak, woke, and sending us broke' chosen, and how was it received?

The slogan was created to target the Albanese government’s stance on the Indigenous Voice referendum and its handling of the cost of living crisis. However, the campaign failed to resonate with voters, particularly as the message was seen as vague and indirectly related to the government's actual policies.

What role did Advance play in the Voice referendum campaign, and why was this significant?

Advance played a major role in the No campaign during the Voice referendum, which successfully opposed the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. However, this success did not translate to the federal election, as voters did not view the two issues as linked in the same way Advance had hoped.

How did Advance's campaign affect the Liberal Party during the election?

The Liberal Party was frustrated with Advance, as it believed that funds diverted to Advance could have been better used by the party itself. Some party members felt that Advance's messaging alienated undecided voters and reinforced negative perceptions of the Liberal Party’s association with Donald Trump.

What was the argument put forward by Advance’s executive director, Matthew Sheen, regarding the election results?

Matthew Sheen blamed the Coalition's poor campaign performance for the election loss, insisting that Advance's strategy had little impact. He claimed the 'weak, woke, and sending us broke' message was the only successful element of the campaign, but it was difficult to substantiate this due to Labour’s increased primary vote.

How did Advance respond to criticisms of their ineffective campaign strategies?

In response to criticism, Advance’s executive director, Matthew Sheen, sent emails to supporters, asserting that they had successfully targeted the Greens by losing seats and keeping their fundraising machine operational. However, there was no significant evidence to show that Advance made a notable difference in the election.

What is the potential future role of Advance within Australian politics after its campaign failure?

Advance is likely to remain aligned with the right-wing of the Liberal Party, particularly its more conservative factions. However, there is growing pushback from the moderate wing, which may influence Advance's future role depending on the outcome of internal Liberal Party power struggles.

What impact did Advance’s campaign have on the broader political landscape in Australia?

Advance’s campaign failed to shift votes in a meaningful way, and its methods, which included associating the government with negative tropes like being 'woke', did not resonate with voters. This led to questions about the group's future relevance and effectiveness in Australian politics.

How do the strategies of Advance compare to political action committees (PACs) in the U.S.?

Advance attempted to emulate U.S.-style PACs by raising money and supporting candidates indirectly. However, Australia’s compulsory voting system limits the effectiveness of such campaigns, as all citizens are required to vote, making it more challenging for groups like Advance to motivate voter turnout or influence choices.