A handful of wealthy donors became the proxy for a much larger anxiety about political influence, and the chamber gave tightening the rules a commanding mandate. Yet the debate was less absolute than the result: some No voters opposed a ban on donations while conceding that mega-donors crossed a line.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case put the argument in democratic rather than merely regulatory terms: “one person, one vote, not one pound, one vote”. Its warning was that “parties naturally dance to the tune of the ultra wealthy”, turning financial power into political access while ordinary voters were left outside the room.
The No case was not simply a defence of unlimited giving. Its strongest voice said, “I draw the line at the millions”, while another demanded that “every hand” be placed “under the same lamp”. Those arguments talked past the Yes side: one focused on who can buy influence, the other on equal rules, disclosure and how campaign money is used, including the demand to focus “on how campaign money is spent, not where it came from”.
That makes this a clear verdict on mega-donors, but not a settled view of party finance as a whole. The room was asking whether trust is damaged by the source of political money, or by the wider failure of politicians to deliver: one No voter’s alternative was simply “politicians actually carrying out their election manifestos”.
The chamber voted for a sharper boundary around concentrated wealth, even as its own debate showed that transparency, campaign conduct and political performance remain part of the same trust problem.
18 Opinions
No, politicians actually carrying out their election manifestos would restore trust in democracy.
It is evident at this point that all major political parties need stricter scrutiny on campaign funding. Maintaining the current system is probably the only thing they all agree on; because it benefits them. Higher Donations= more money to spend on campaign strategy. Wealthy people will typically donate to parties in their best interests, and poor people can’t afford to do the same. It is a flawed system that needs to change.
There's no evidence that voters change their attitudes on key policies based on ads with higher production values. There is evidence that negative campaigning and gossipy personal attacks on individuals are very destructive to democracy. Cleaning up politics requires a focus on how campaign money is spent, not where it came from.
Donations from anyone, as long as from personal finances,should be allowed. I don't want my taxes to pay for parties I wouldn't support. Similar to BB'F'C.
It’s not about this as the legislation will be slated towards the left. Anybody that is always skewing the playing field is not the good guys. They will not allow the Unions to be included so that shows the deceit in this proposal. I would encourage the electorate to participate so they could donate personally say up to £250K in any 5 year period and get full tax relief. Corporate donations including Unions should be capped say at £5 Million in any 5 year period. No relief.
YES I'd suggest anyone who needs to be convinced that this issue needs to be halted & dealt with has been living in a hermits cave for at least the last 20 years (never mind the last 20 hours!)
Around the world, democracies are increasingly being undermined by the emergence of oligarchs using their billions to manipulate politics. They urgently need to be reined in.
No. I want an equal playing field. I hate any two-tier system; that is what divides. If one side can dictate under the radar, the other will demand the same hole. Ban one source and leave the rest in the dark and you have already picked a team. Transparency is the tool. A government is elected on a manifesto. Donors and charities may speak. They may not drive. Put every hand under the same lamp.
We are not a democracy with these shady individuals being bought to influence our laws.
I don’t believe this fixes anything it’s another gimmick perhaps individual politicians should wear suits like F1 drivers with their donors splashed on like sponsors then the public would know who is influencing them at least there’d be transparency then