If a billionaire disagrees with an idea my new baseline response is ok, maybe this idea has merit. As you rarely hear a billionaire speaking altruistically

What a fucking nong. A cap doesn’t stop you from donating, it stops you from unfairly controlling the narrative. Such a move does more to allow ideas to be heard by not drowning them out.

As an American, do NOT let them claim that money is "speech"!

Lmao if Clive cared so much about diversity of ideas, why did the UAP always vote with the Coalition 9.9 times out of 10? Barely had any ideas despite the lower house seats

Pay your fucking workers, Clive.

Add an American, trust me; it's a trap.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Billionaire businessman, Clive Palmer, has warned Labor against legislating electoral spending and donation caps, accusing it of attempting to “silence the diversity of ideas in this country”.

Although the reforms are backed by an inquiry into the 2022 election by the joint standing committee on electoral matters (Jscem), Palmer’s intervention into the debate spells trouble for the government, which could face a high court challenge on the basis caps infringe the implied freedom of political communication.

Guardian Australia first revealed in July 2022 that the special minister of state, Don Farrell, planned to legislate truth-in-political-advertising laws and spending caps, an intention confirmed in June 2023 when he said the government “can’t allow our electoral system to be held hostage by rich people”.

On Tuesday, Palmer responded to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald and Age suggesting the law would allow tens of thousands – but not millions – to be donated and spent.

In 2019 the high court struck down a NSW law which halved the amount third-party groups can spend on state campaigns from $1.05m to $500,000, ruling that it infringed the implied freedom of political communication.

A spokesperson for the shadow special minister of state, Jane Hume, said “we will wait for the government to put forward a response to the final report of [Jscem], and then consider our position through the normal party processes”.

The original article contains 517 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!