{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02066929133858268, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017716535433070866, 'mean_word_length': 5.603896103896104, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
'Unions New South Wales v New South Wales' (2013) 304 ALR 266

In Unions New South Wales v New South Wales, the High Court of Australia considered the constitutional validity of amendments to the Election Funding, Expenditure and Disclosures Act 1981 (NSW) ('EFED Act'). The plaintiffs' contention was that provisions restricting political donations and electoral communication expenditure impermissibly burdened the freedom of political communication implied by the Commonwealth Constitution. This case note draws comparisons between Unions and Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth, a 1992 case that considered legislation remarkably similar to the law in Unions. This comparison provides the backdrop for a critical analysis of the provisions challenged in Unions and the policies that underpinned the amendments. After exploring the High Court's approach to these issues, this case note concludes with a brief discussion of the implications of Unions within the context of electoral system reform.