Sam Power, University of Bristol

Questions about a £5 million gift to the leader of Reform UK Nigel Farage from a crypto billionaire simply won’t go away. As someone who spends their life thinking, writing and talking about money in politics, I’ve been left with at least five questions that remain unanswered. These centre not just on the donation and Reform’s financial arrangements, but also on what it says about the system of political finance in the UK.

1. Should he have declared it?

It appears so. It was reported in late April that Farage had received the cash from Christopher Harborne. This was shortly before deciding to stand in the seat of Clacton in the 2024 general election, which he subsequently won.

Farage claims that because it was a personal gift it did not need to be registered. However, the House of Commons code of conduct states that the possible motive of the gifter and what the donation is to be used for should be considered. If there is doubt, the code is clear that it should be registered.

Harborne has said he expected nothing in return, but only wanted to ensure Farage’s security. But given the timing of the gift, in 2024, questions might be asked about his motive. At this time, according to the Electoral Commission, Harborne had given about £1.5 million to the Conservatives (and £1 million to Boris Johnson’s private office). He had also given millions to Reform ahead of its 2019 general election campaign.

As such, Harborne was not some unknown benefactor. This information, at the very least, creates doubt about whether the donation ought to be declared. And there have also been questions over a house Farage bought weeks after receiving the £5 million.

But the question of whether the money should have been declared is now one for the parliamentary standards commissioner, which is investigating whether Farage broke the rules.

2. What does it tell us about how Reform is funded?

One thing that we know about Reform is that its funding base is remarkably shallow. In fact, investigative journalist Peter Geoghegan has found that 75% of all the reportable donations Reform has received came from just three men. They are Christopher Harborne, millionaire businessman Jeremy Hosking and Reform’s own deputy leader, Richard Tice.

I have shown in my research that the UK is very much a donor-led democracy where the few get more of a say than the many. So concerns about the wealthy having a larger influence on the way politics is run are certainly not a Reform-shaped novelty.

3. Should the public be worried?

Yes. It has been argued that for elections to have integrity, four things need to be on show: participation, contestation, deliberation and adjudication. Importantly, perception is as important as reality here.

Public opinion fluctuates, but one of the more robust polling findings is that the public has always been and remains concerned that donors have an outsized influence on British politics. So whether they do or not (and it’s notoriously hard to prove), the damage is done.

4. Should Reform be worried?

When he was questioned about Farage’s £5 million, Tice maintained that voters knew about it and “they said, we want more Nigel”. It is true that if you ask the UK public to rank issues that matter to them, then (unless you happen to knock on my door) party funding wouldn’t come close to the top ten.

And yet standards never seem to matter to politicians – until they really do. Just ask Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer or Peter Mandelson, all of whom have faced questions of their own. There are many populists who build personas as mavericks who refuse to play by the rules. While voters might not always agree with their methods, they get results. (And some voters might even think: gosh, you can’t help but love them a little bit for it.)

Nigel Farage might not think the public cares about this. But it appears that they do. And maybe Farage knows this too. If not, he’d probably have been happy to mention the £5 million in the first place.

5. Why don’t Labour care?

It remains astonishing that Labour seems to be so uninterested in addressing a financial pattern of behaviour that could risk undermining democracy – which the party is professing to protect.

It seems even more astonishing that the party seems so casual about addressing the issue of mega-donors while a bill is going through parliament that is quite literally designed to restore faith in politics.

But it may be that the government doesn’t want to cap donations (as many other countries do) because it thinks it would mean introducing more state funding. But the problem has now become too stark to ignore, and a compromise position is imperative.

This could be a “democracy backstop” donation cap of £1 million. This is far higher than any other cap I know of around the world. But it would reflect the voluntarist tradition of the UK – and could start a conversation. Get a backstop in place, and then conduct research on how much it can be lowered without a) risking the financial ruin of parties or b) the need for further state support.

After the May elections, Labour said it was listening to voters and that as a government it needed to be bold. It’s time for the party to put its money where its mouth is. That is, before a mega-donor does it for them.

Sam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.