The High Court has ruled a Queensland law banning political donations from property developers is valid.

Key points: Former LNP Queensland president Gary Spence, who quit over the ban, challenged the law in the High Court

Former LNP Queensland president Gary Spence, who quit over the ban, challenged the law in the High Court The High Court ruled the law was constitutional but did not deliver its reasons

The High Court ruled the law was constitutional but did not deliver its reasons The law, which bans property developer donations, was introduced in Queensland last year to crack down on corruption and increase transparency

The law was introduced last year to crack down on corruption and increase transparency.

It was challenged in the High Court by former LNP Queensland president Gary Spence, who quit his role at the helm of the party over the ban.

Mr Spence spearheaded the campaign, claiming the law meant he could face jail time because of his dealings with the property industry.

But the High Court ruled the law was constitutional, and that the Queensland Government was able to make property donations a criminal offence.

The court has not delivered reasons for its ruling, but has issued the orders in time to give certainty for those involved in the current federal election campaign.

During the case, the Government argued the laws were necessary after a report from the state's Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) on corruption in local government elections.

"The Crime and Corruption Commission found a risk, or perceived risk, of corruption at the local government level arising from political donations from property developers," the state's submission to the High Court said.

Law 'burdens' freedom of political communication

But Mr Spence said the laws did not differentiate between donations to local councillors and state or federal candidates, and could not apply to federal candidates because it was an exclusive domain of the Commonwealth.

Mr Spence also claimed the law placed a burden on the implied right to freedom of political communication in the constitution.

"A restriction on the availability of funds will substantially diminish the extent of political communications," his lawyers argued.

"Campaigning is an essential part of political communication."

The Queensland Government agreed but told the High Court the laws were necessary and justified.

"The burden is indirect and insubstantial," the state argued.

"This is because the provisions regulate funds, not speech, and leave prohibited donors at liberty to communicate on matters of politics and government, including influencing politicians to a point of view."

State government welcomes decision

Acting Attorney-General Stirling Hinchliffe said the State Government welcomed the decision saying it upheld its commitment to transparency and accountability.

"In contrast, the LNP has wanted to keep their donations a secret," he said.

"They have done everything they possibly could to keep them a secret, including using the Commonwealth Parliament and gone to the highest court to hide donations.

"But the jig is up."

Queensland's Deputy Opposition Leader Tim Mander said his party disagreed with the ruling.

"We still believe that these laws are politically motivated by the Palaszczuk Government," Mr Mander said.

"We don't think it's fair that one section of the community should not be allowed to be part of the political process.

"Where in the meantime the Palaszczuk Government continues receive wads of cash from dodgy trade unions.

"We think it was worth the fight. We think the questions were valid."