If, like me, you’ve been an observer of American politics over the decades, one thing that is glaringly obvious is the amount of money that washes through the system, paying for advertising, cadres of professional staff and all of the paraphernalia that make electoral politics increasingly a game for the wealthy or those with access to the wealthy. One candidate in a Senate or Gubernatorial race can, if they’re unlucky, spend as much as the British political parties combined in a General Election campaign.
We already have cause for concern over the influence of a small number of multi-millionaires on our politics. The Conservative Party has become increasingly dependent on a small number of people to finance its campaigns, leading to suggestions of Russian influence and interference. And, of course, there have been plenty of accusations made regarding Nigel Farage’s links with senior Russian officials. But the cost of campaigns has increased, and with party memberships in historic decline, relying on membership fees is a one way journey to financial, and thus political, oblivion.
So, the reports that Elon Musk is planning to donate $100 million to Reform UK are alarming, to say the least. That’s the sort of money that, combined with the reach of X and support from elements of the UK media industry, would have potentially huge impacts on British politics. After all, truth is not a necessary requirement for the sort of campaigns that would emerge backed by that sort of money. And given the very limited sanctions that the Electoral Commission has at its disposal, and some interesting questions about what might happen if a political party attempted “lawfare” against it, it isn’t clear that our political system is equipped with sufficient guardrails to protect our society.
What might be done? Well, a Labour government could place limits upon the amounts that any individual could give a political party in any year, including via controlled third parties. Ironically, given the rules regarding Union political funds, that might not hurt Labour that much, and we might well be able to survive. The Conservatives, on the other hand, might struggle a bit at first, although you suspect that their members could be squeezed a bit harder. It would negate the possibility of a Musk-driven wave of cash, and would have the effect of cleaning up our politics, something that most true democrats would endorse. And, it would encourage greater effort by all political parties to recruit members, thus broadening democratic engagement.
When I was a member of the Financial Advisory Committee of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, there was a limit for individual and corporate donations to European political parties of €18,000, an amount thought to be insufficient to unduly influence a political party. It was, in turn, linked to European Parliament funding calculated in relation to the number of MEPs who were members of that Party. Perhaps we could do something similar, but linked to the number of votes received as well. And yes, I appreciate that this might mean giving money to political parties and groups which we might not like much, but it would be transparent and easy to understand.
It is just one of many reforms that will help to preserve the democracy we place so much faith in but, if I were part of a Labour administration right now, I’d be thinking about a wide package of democratic reforms whilst the going is good, rather than trying to patch up a defence when the wolf is at the door. Because relying on an evidently vengeful individual getting bored and turning on someone else is, at best, delaying the inevitable battle to a time when our democratic system is too weak to resist.
* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Green energy will supplement conventional energy rather than replace it
Getting things done - Oxford Street #dundeewestend
Trump fanboys see share prices rise after inauguration
Jenny Barnes
Nigel Jones
Peter Davies
Roland
13 Comments
An interesting and well argued article by Mark.
If this is considered to be more that the mischievous musing of an over entitled spoilt narcissist, but instead a real threat to the democratic structures in this country, the government needs to have an immediate response prepared making this sort of action
by whatever means it is implemented, illegal immediately.
It would have to include robust and immediately enforceable penalties on all bodies and individuals involved in giving, receiving or channelling such support and establish comprehensive sanctions on those developing mechanisms to bypass the effect. Overall, it would need to be something very close to the US laws on racketeering, UK laws on money laundering and conspiracy and also UK laws on sanctions, but with the addition of immediate effective enforcement – a tough ask on a bureaucracy like HMRC which to date has done nothing to prosecute those by passing sanctions on Russia.
Or we give up and just rely on muddling through. I wonder which?
The Democrats outspent the Republicans by near on a Billion dollars …They had a huge ground campaign and the people to do it …
Ultimately it came down policy/messaging – no amount of $ can make up for voters wanting change …Labour know they have to deliver – Starmers speech on immigration last week could easily have been said by any Tory or Reform politician … Millions spent by the Tories on the last GE campaign didn’t count for nothing …
Looks to me Elon Musk’s financial support for Reform is good reason for our party to talk to other parties about urgent reform of party donations, something we have been saying for a long time but maybe this will get others to agree ?
No amount of money can compensate for policies that resonate with voters and address their concerns . Harris had the ground game and the financial backing , but the message just didn’t get attract enough voters where it really mattered .
@Craig, finance enables more communication of the message over a long period of time and we must remember that people get perceptions embedded in their minds which take time and lots of communications to overcome and get the true perceptions understood. Harris, or course, started much too late in this process.
Sadly we have recently seen the power of money in the UK in the cmpaign for the “assisted dying” bill. Some underground stations near Westminster were covered in adverts supporting assisted suicide. These seem to have been paid for by the organisation “Dignity in Dying”, which clearly has some wealthy donors, and a lot of money to spend. As many have pointed out, it seemed highly irresponsible to promote suicide in an underground station, for obvious tragic reasons. Yet TfL allowed this although they have policy of not allowing adverts of a controversial or sensitive nature, and although they have banned adverts for junk food.
Groups opposing assisted suicide, including disability rights groups, have less money to spend, and therefore had a less high profile campaign.
Nigel. The Dems were running on their record being an incumbent. Some good some not so good . Losing the State , Senate , and House, isn’t entirely down to Joe Rogans Podcasts etc.
The Dems had huge legacy media backing + high profile endorsements . All to no avail.
Donations have long been an issue and needs sorting once and for all. As with the voting system. One opinion that can be true is we are not in a good place at present.
Indeed Craig, but when you say “No amount of money can compensate for policies that resonate with voters and address their concerns”, you have to remember that voters concerns are framed by the news agenda they see and money can raise concerns up the agenda, or even generate false concerns as we all saw in the Brexit debate. Such a sum of money as $100m would have a huge impact on Reform’s ability to raise its manufactured grievances up the agenda to a level way beyond what any other party could compete with.
We have already seen how Musk tested the electoral system in the US well beyond its normal boundaries with his $1m daily draw and got away with it because any legal challenge could not have been completed before the result would have been declared.
Without a clear legal framework that can be effected almost instantaneously, he could easily do that sort of thing here as well.
Quite simply such actions would be a clear threat to our entire democracy and pretending well framed policies alone can somehow overcome it, really is naive beyond belief.
>”It was, in turn, linked to European Parliament funding calculated in relation to the number of MEPs who were members of that Party.”
No, an individual person’s or business contribution should be linked to their primary citizenship (or HQ for share listing and tax purposes) and the national living/minimum wage in the year of contribution. Thus for example: those resident in the UK can have a higher threshold and all contributions from overseas can be publicly declared.
Hi Roland,
I think your post is a bit confusing. Can you clarify whether you are saying that Mark’s statement is is incorrect as a fact or are you saying you disagree with it as a suggestion as to what might be done?
Thanks.
Hi David,
I’m not disagreeing with Marks statement of what has gone before, but I am disagreeing with his unstated but implicit suggestion that this could be used in the future. As we operate a one person one vote system, it should equally apply to the funding of political parties and thus we should cap what a single entity can contribute to a political party.
The danger of immensely rich individuals or corporations influencing the outcome of elections needs addressing urgently. Democracy depends on everyone having an equal vote so assuming we are all to varying amounts influenced in that decision, no body should have undue influence. Now is the time to impose strict rules on who and by how much donations can be made that might influence election outcomes.