The complaints about undercutting real photographers actually kind of amused me. The big political parties spend literally half a billion dollars a year on advertising. If they find a photo good enough to go on the front page of their website, they are <i>perfectly</i> willing to make that photographer&#x27;s year, and they&#x27;re not going to skimp on something that important. There&#x27;s no undercutting going on here - they decided that this guy&#x27;s photographs were the best options. Maybe it&#x27;s because the marginal value of a higher-quality photograph is not worth the money for some reason, in which case political photography as a business is doomed. Maybe it&#x27;s because he&#x27;s not making technically great photographs but is somehow better at political photographs. Maybe it&#x27;s because the licensing is a bureaucratic nightmare and the cost to a party of using a professional photograph is 90% the manpower required to deal with it costing <i>any money whatsoever</i>. Whatever it is, I seriously doubt that it isn&#x27;t the major political parties cheaping out.