Australian coal lobby spent nearly $4 million on political campaigns, records reveal

CANBERRA — A political advocacy group that targeted Labor, Green, and independent candidates during Australia’s recent federal election was almost entirely bankrolled by a coal industry lobby, according to new financial disclosures.

Data released by the Australian Electoral Commission shows that the group, Australians for Prosperity, received a total of $3.89 million during the last fiscal year. Of that amount, $3.68 million was provided by Coal Australia.

Coal Australia launched in 2024 and is funded through membership fees from coal producers and suppliers.

During the election cycle, Australians for Prosperity spent more than $414,000 on online advertisements attacking political rivals. The organization maintains close ties to the Liberal Party.

Former Liberal MP Jason Falinski, who served as the group's spokesperson during the election, said he was "surprised" to learn that the bulk of the funding originated from Coal Australia.

In addition to its support for the advocacy group, Coal Australia made direct donations to various political parties. While the majority of those funds went to right-wing parties, the lobby also gave a small portion to the Labor Party.

The emergence of "Australians for Prosperity" represents a textbook case of political "astroturfing"—the orchestration of artificial grassroots movements to mask the influence of powerful corporate interests. While the organization markets itself as a champion of public economic growth, financial disclosures reveal a starker reality: with 94% of its funding derived from a single source within the coal industry, the group’s primary mandate is the protection of fossil fuel interests.

The group’s strategy reflects a sophisticated evolution in corporate lobbying. Rather than launching overt pro-coal campaigns, which may face public backlash, they have pivoted to financing targeted attack ads against pro-climate candidates. By framing these candidates as political liabilities, the industry exerts significant indirect influence over electoral outcomes without ever having to defend its own environmental record.

At the heart of this controversy is a critical failure in Australia’s political finance transparency. Under current regulations, these financial ties were not made public until eight months after the election—long after the results were certified. This lag in disclosure effectively deprives the electorate of the ability to make informed decisions. When voters are unable to trace the source of political messaging in real-time, the democratic process is compromised.

This case raises fundamental questions regarding electoral integrity. The ability of major corporations to deploy millions of dollars in "dark money" to clandestinely shape public opinion suggests a systemic imbalance. If transparency remains an afterthought, the fairness of the democratic process will continue to be subverted by those with the deepest pockets and the most to lose from climate-focused policy shifts.