ACT upset they can't buy the next election

Act says electoral spending cap unfair
ACT is the only party which will oppose reforms to electoral finance laws, claiming a $300,000 spending limit restricts concerned citizens to one sixteenth of the amount political parties can spend.

So it's wrong to protect our country from plutocracy because groups can only spend $300 000 and that is one sixteenth of what Political Parties can spend??? But more than one group can donate, so the total impact can be higher than what the political parties spend! The protections are there to stop the wealthy from buying the election, the most dramatic impact is the lifting of the anonymous donations limit from $10 000 to $15 000, this will allow a much larger flow of anonymous donations which National benefit most from.

What's more hypercritical? Demanding the rich can buy the election while pretending their paid speech is really free speech for democracy or hard line law and order 3 strikes legislation pushed through by David Garrett?