To take just a few recent examples: Musk offering $100 million to Reform, a Health Minister supported by substantial funding from private health companies, and – not quite so recent – millions wasted in Covid contracts given to party donors. The influence of big money on our politics is greater than ever.
Yet `The majority of the public support stringent measures to crack down on the perception that political influence can be bought, including capping, or even banning political donations. Politicians are out of step with the electorate on this issue.’
So says a recent report on Money and Democracy from the
Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research (an offshoot of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democracy and the Constitution).
Liberal Democrats could reasonably protest that we are in step with the electorate on this – our 2024 Manifesto included a commitment to `Take big money out of politics by capping donations to political parties’. But what the ICDR report offers is a clear analysis of the fundamental problem, and some simple principled solutions. As they say ` The existing rules on political finance are excessively complex and fail to address the core problem’.
The report gives a wide range of examples, both of the increasing proportion of basic party funding that now comes from major donors, and the many ways in which donations can potentially influence political decisions.
The solution starts with the basic principle of democracy: that all citizens should have equal influence. A first implication of this is that non-citizens, and businesses or organisations, should not be allowed to donate to political parties or politicians at all. The second is that the cap on donations should be affordable by ordinary citizens, and thus at most a few thousands of pounds a year. The report suggests that the cap should be set by the Electoral Commission (whose independence it wants strengthened).
Would we have to offer public funding to parties, perhaps £2 per year per vote at the most recent election? The report suggests not, offering the probably more acceptable alternative of public support in kind: rather than providing additional cash, there should be public money for additional platforms for politicians to advocate for and debate their ideas.
The report also goes into other conflicts of interest, such as those arising from second jobs. Its key point is that current rules are complex and ineffective, particularly because final decisions are taken by Parliament itself rather than independently.
Its solutions are summarised as:
- Cap political contributions at a level all voters can afford
- Give the courts the final say on parliamentary standards and the ministerial code
- Prohibit MPs from speaking, voting, or advocating on any issue on which they have a financial conflict
There are of course a lot of details to consider behind these simple points, and we may not agree with the report on all of them. But a clear policy with these points or similar should be attractive to voters, and demonstrate that on the connections between Money and Democracy we are `in step with the electorate’.
* Denis Mollison is a former Chair of Liberal Democrats for Electoral Reform, and has been a member of the party since joining the SDP in 1981.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Labour MPs revolt
Edward Street of old #dundeewestend
Tens of Thousands
A Puffin Books profile of Joan Aiken
"Could you be the one to help a care leaver?"
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Simon R
Steve Trevethan
Peter Martin
nigel hunter
Craig Levene
11 Comments
Thank you for an excellent and timely article!
Currently “our” country is not a democracy but a plutocracy with ineffectual elections and a main stream media which connives at malinformation.
Malinformation – information that stems from the truth but is often exaggerated in a way that misleads
Hear hear! Couldn’t agree more.
How did Manuela Perteghella’s recent bill stack up against this?
This is important. Musk is not the first Oligarch to have bought political influence and won’t be the last. Silvio Berlusconi used his media empire to gain control of Italian politics and further enrich his family and associates as Prime Minister.
The potetial introduction of mega money and X (Twitter) influence to UK political campaigning is a threat to be taken seriously.
I disagree. De-funding politicians will just mean more power to the media (including social media) which will just make them more powerful.
Courts have absolutely no place in determine whether someone should be suspended or dismissed as an MP. It is an affront to democracy. Also it will give the government an opening to politicise judge appointments.
Very timely and perceptive article. It also chimes with the recent bill introduced by Manuela Perteghella as Jim Williams suggests. Denis rightly mentions the APPG on Democracy and the Constitution – and the Liberal Democrats are also strongly represented on the very active APPG for Fair Elections (Lisa Smart is a Vice-Chair) which includes taking the dirty money out of politics as one of its missions – along with combatting ‘disinformation’ – or maybe malinformation! – and advocating a National Commission on Electoral Reform. ( https://www.fairelections.uk/)
Thanks for the comments.
I apologise for the web links, which I formatted wrongly. For those interested, they are:
https://goodlawproject.org/how-private-health-has-invested-in-wes-streeting/
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/national-audit-office-investigating-uk-government-covid-contracts-after-cronyism-accusations/>
https://www.icdr.co.uk/news/money-and-democracy-report
https:www.icdr.co.uk
So if you want every voter to have equal influence, do we also have to have a limit on much much time people can ‘donate’ to campaigning activities? I mean, some people have jobs that require them to work long hours, or have caring responsibilities while others could be retired with plenty time on their hands. How it ensuring equal influence if we allow some people to donate far more time than others?
Indeed Steve (Trevethan) you have hit the nail on the head. Misinformation (and the ability of those in positions of influence either through wealth or position is at the root of many of our nation’s problems.
The one thing I would add is the downright dishonesty of almost all our mainstream media, including the BBC, which undermined Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of Labour in the run up to the 2019 election through its through its flagship Panorama programme and its news coverage through decidedly skewed reporting of Anti Semitism in Labour, blaming Corbyn throughout, when much responsibility lay with Labour’s own Head Office Staff which was not headed Corbyn, but by the elected General Secretary of the party. They undermined Corbyn and gave us Johnson and Brexit.
Papers about this were leaked to Al Jazeera who produced two programmes entitled The Labour Files. They make an interesting watch on YouTube, showing how back office staff can totally undermine an elected leader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elp18OvnNV0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DTMF0MSXng&t=0s
Warning significant parts are very unpleasant.
Funding of political parties and their campaigns is a balance between offering opportunites for eligible people to help their party and not allowing undue influence in a process where all members of the electorate are equal. We have swung too far in favour of allowing wealty people influence elections. We need legislation to address this balance so people feel the systme is fair.
I totally agree. PIP is not about getting people into work. It is a benefit designed to help people with the extra costs of disability. Costs such as extra heating, extra laundry, the need for a vehicle to get around, extra equipment needed, taxi fares and the cost of some care. It is available to people whether they are employed or not. Cutting PIP is nothing to do with getting people back to work. This is a pure cost cutting measure, which will hit those with little even harder. It is totally dishonest to link this with a desire to get people back to work. It terrifies those who have never worked and who have no real prospect of getting a job. Those of us lucky enough to have some form of employment can tell them of the discrimination disabled people face in the work place. You only need to look at the statistics to see this. This Labour Government need to be honest. If they are cutting PIP to try to save money, then be honest and say so. I can’t quite believe that a Labour Government would ever have come up with these proposals and been so dishonest about them. You need more money for defence. Then say so and put up taxes rather than targeting the most vulnerable sections of society. We deserve better