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.
17 Opinions
Democracy is meant to be one person, one vote, not one pound, one vote. When a handful of multi-millionaires fund over a third of our politics, parties naturally dance to the tune of the ultra wealthy while working people get ignored.
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, politicians actually carrying out their election manifestos would restore trust in democracy.
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.
We are not a democracy with these shady individuals being bought to influence our laws.
No donors at all, looks like a bribe toe. Ideally no parties as well, but we are where we are. Maybe if parties started to earn money the politicians would better understand the economy, laws, taxes and how it all mixes together.
This focuses on the symptoms of a problem, and not the problem itself. We have many lawmakers in Parliament, but only the 100 or so in government do it as a full-time job. If MPs are for sale i want the taxpayers to be top-bidder. I want (much) higher salaries for MPs to tempt competent professionals to serve; I want more full-time committees with more MPs taking part with more power to act for Parliament; I want longer Parliamentary sessions too. In short, more full-time MPs
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.