"The fact that property developers might make political donations in the hope or expectation of receiving political favours, exerting political influence or otherwise advancing their own interests does not mark them out as a class so different from other sections of the electorate as to warrant discriminately prohibiting them from making political donations," he wrote.

"Plainly, there are any number of electors who make political donations in the hope or expectation of extracting political favours, exerting political influence or otherwise advancing their own interests."

Justice Nettle said large corporations and trade unions also made political donations in the hope of influencing decision-makers.

"It is not unreasonable to suppose that there is now a significant proportion of the Queensland electorate who believe that the state of Queensland is or would be justified in prohibiting political donations by tobacco companies, the gun lobby or fossil fuel producers, on the basis that any influence that those organisations might exert on anti-smoking or gun control or fossil fuel production policies or legislation would be "undue"," he wrote.

"There may also be a section of the Queensland electorate who believe that it would be a good thing to prevent political donations by, say, sugar producers or private health insurers or prescription drug or prosthesis manufacturers, on the basis that any influence which those organisations might have on political decisions concerning sugar consumption, the promotion of private health insurance or prescription drugs or prosthetics would be undue"."