There has been a significant intervention in the debate around electoral reform recently, in the guise of former Prime Minister John Major. The Conservative politician has questioned the “validity” of the First Past the Post system for Westminster and said the case for examining its role is “growing”.

This is the latest in a growing drum beat of politicians on the right of British politics asking whether it’s time to ditch First Past the Post and move to a more proportional voting system. The case has long been made by Conservative Action for Electoral Reform, and since the last election figures such as Tobias Ellwood and Nigel Evans have both made the case for electoral reform.

Major’s intervention adds to this momentum, not least as it comes from a PM who directly benefited from Westminster’s voting system. His comments came when he gave the latest Attlee Foundation Lecture at King’s College London last month. The speech’s theme was that we are in the midst of a pivotal moment for democracy at home and abroad.

The former PM pointed out that democracy is in retreat in many parts of the world with only around a quarter of the globe living under a system where they get to genuinely choose who governs them.

Against such a backdrop, Major urged us not to take our own liberal democratic settlement for granted and warned that not addressing the declining faith in our political institutions could open up a vacuum into which a future autocrat could step.

‘Our democracy has fallen short of expectations’

He praised British democracy as a system that has been ‘an enabler’ for peace, as well as one that promotes justice, wellbeing and the transformation of life opportunities.

Yet, he warned:

“Along the way it makes mistakes, but its purpose is to extend freedoms of choice and action that more extreme politicians would curtail.

“But … but … we cannot ignore the uncomfortable truth that, in recent years, our democracy has fallen short of expectations.” 

The speech noted that many parts of our political settlement are now under strain, a theme typified by the waning dominance of the two traditional main parties. This can be seen in the fact that the last general election was the first time we saw four parties get over 10% of the vote, and since then that trend has only advanced and we now have five parties consistently polling over 10%.

In 2024 this helped create the most disproportional election result in UK history as Labour received two-thirds of the seats on a third of a vote, and the Greens and Reform together received less than 2% of the seats in Parliament despite garnering more than 20% of the vote combined. This means the current parliament is the most unrepresentative of how the country voted in history.

As voting preferences spread more widely First Past the Post provides distorted results

Major acknowledged in his speech that First Past the Post, which is designed for two parties, is acting more erratically as it struggles to cope in the current multiparty environment.

He said:

“Recent General Elections have thrown into doubt the continuing validity of the “first past the post” system of voting.  

“As voting preferences spread more widely it provides distorted results. The democratic case for examining this is growing, although changes would come with distinct drawbacks.” 

While the former Tory leader stopped short of voicing support for electoral reform or moving to a more proportional system, it is significant to have a former Conservative prime minster openly question the ‘validity’ of the Westminster voting system.

In 1992, Major was the beneficiary of First Past the Post’s disproportional winner’s bonus, as his 41.9% of the vote was boosted into 51.6% of the seats in Parliament. However, his comments also make sense in terms of his thesis that democracy needs to be seen to be serving the interests and meeting the needs of its citizens.

If First Past the Post continues to behave in a chaotic way, then we risk having an even more disproportional result and an even more unrepresentative parliament after the next election. The Institute for Government recently warned that voters will become “ever more frustrated” if “casting a vote starts to feel more like participating in a lottery”.

We have argued that this concern is particularly acute when trust in politics has already slumped to record lows in recent years. The case for moving to an electoral system that ensures seats in parliament properly represent how people voted is becoming stronger by the day.

Major calls for a cap on political donations

In his speech, John Major also called for a wider ‘updating’ of our politics, starting with a clean-up of donations and honours.

He said:

“Politics has a grubby underbelly that can make it look seedy. We need a spring clean.

Is political funding corrupted if ‒ with no qualifications other than money ‒ donors receive honours or preferential access to Ministers?  

“Should political donations be capped to protect against undue influence?  I believe the answer is – yes.”

This is an area where we also agree with the former prime minister, as we’ve called for a donations cap to stop money pouring into our politics and further corroding public trust. There has been some movement on this front, with the government pledging to cap overseas donations at £100,000 a year following the recommendations in the recent Rycroft report.

This is a welcome step in itself, but a cap needs to be applied to domestic donations as well, especially as massive donations from ultra-wealthy individuals are becoming an increasing feature of our politics.

Aside from his policy suggestions, one of the most striking messages from Major’s speech was his message on how democracy binds a society together while allowing it to work out its differences and find a way forward. He underscored this by addressing the optics of a Conservative prime minister giving a speech in honour of a Labour PM. Major said despite their differing political philosophies he admired many of Attlee’s achievements, from the creation of the NHS to his commitment to public service.

He added: “Of course, where he and I both active in politics today – there would be differences of policy, of priority, of philosophy. We are political opponents. But mark this: Opponents, Yes. Enemies, No.”

Have you been ‘questioning the validity of First Past the Post’?

Add your name to our call to scrap First Past the Post

Today we welcomed the review by Philip Rycroft into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. The review rightly identifies a loss of trust in our democratic system and processes, and the importance of securing our democracy from those who seek to undermine it.

The review makes many excellent recommendations that we have been calling for, including a moratorium on crypto donations, strengthening the corporate donations test, tighter regulation of online political advertising and increasing enforcement around political finance. The review also recommends a cap on donations from voters living overseas.

The Secretary of State responded to the report in Parliament today, confirming that the government will be amending the Representation of the People Bill to introduce a £100,000 cap on overseas donations and a temporary ban on cryptocurrency donations of any amount. They will also respond to the other recommendations.

Why not cap all donations?

The Representation of the People Bill would be greatly strengthened by taking on the recommendations of Rycroft’s report. However, the government must go further and also bring in a cap on how much all donors can give to a party, not just those based abroad. This is widely supported by the public and would help prevent our politics from being swamped with massive donations, which now frequently reach into the multiple millions.

Donations in the millions from private sources have increased significantly over time. In the year prior to the 2024 General Election, political parties received 18 separate donations of £1 million or more. Totalling almost £41 million this represents 32% of the total party donations within that period. In total, nearly a third of donations to political parties in the pre-election regulated period came from just nine sources.

It is crucial that the public always trusts that politicians are acting in their interest and not of those with the deepest pockets. Our politics should not be for sale to the highest bidder or left open to the influence of hostile foreign powers.

The ERS fed into the Rycroft Review

We are grateful to have met with Philip Rycroft and had the opportunity to raise our concerns as part of the review process. It is very welcome that the review has taken a comprehensive approach to these issues and suggested a wide range of significant changes.

The rules around money in politics need to be strengthened to ensure that politicians are always focused on the needs of voters, not donors.

Join the Electoral Reform Society

Thousands of ERS members support meetings like this as well as our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Join the ERS today

Lobbying is a word that can be used to describe all manner of sins in Westminster. It has hit the headlines again courtesy of Peter Mandelson and his relationship to convicted paedophile Epstein. But what is lobbying, and how do we clean it up?

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a practice that is as commonplace in Westminster as the mice who run along the corridors of Parliament.

Lobbyists attempt to influence government officials. But, lobbying is not inherently a bad thing, the ERS lobbies. We email MPs, researchers and Peers across the political spectrum. We organise meetings with parliamentarians and their staff to inform them of our latest research. It’s important that the government get the opinions of people outside Westminster.

Most of these meetings come via the relationships you naturally build by working in Westminster. To follow up an informal introduction in the pub to an MP’s staffer with an email requesting a meeting is as natural as breathing.

The key distinction between the lobbying we do and what has been exposed this week is that the lobbying I refer to does not operate using an elite network of people within government or influential institutions like banks. It’s more like a quick coffee dodging leaks in Portcullis House in full view of journalists and staffers who stroll through.

A look into Mandelson’s methods

Lobbying and transparency in Westminster have made the news because of the release of the ‘Epstein files’ by the American Department of Justice.

The files appear to show Peter Mandelson encouraging Epstein to ask the head of JP Morgan to ‘shout at’ the Chancellor to try and change the government’s course on a tax on banker’s bonuses in 2009.

What is laid bare by the documents is that in Westminster, lobbying is often conducted through personal relationships with no formal channels. The Westminster system relies on the trust and discretion of friends and acquaintances, not fair play and oversight.

So what are the Westminster lobbying rules?

Efforts have been made to regulate this system, but the current piecemeal rules do not get to the heart of the issue on the parliamentary estate. The Register of Consultant Lobbyists was created in 2014 but only covers consultancies; firms who lobby on behalf of clients who pay them. They must sign the register and disclose the clients who have employed them.

However, they only have to register their meetings when they lobby government Ministers or Permanent Secretaries. Nor do they have to say what they spoke about, the meetings or their outcomes.

This leaves the majority of lobbying undeclared.

The register does not cover public affairs professionals hired in house to lobby only for that company, trade bodies, unions, or charities. Not to mention any lobbying at all of backbench MPs, staff or Peers. Some peers are themselves lobbyists – at least 50 members of the House of Lords worked for lobbying firms in 2025.

The lobbying register in Westminster focuses on the companies doing the lobbying and refuses to confront the realities of how networking and lobbying works in SW1.

What is the solution?

In terms of understanding the complex interpersonal nature of lobbying and regulating it, Westminster is being outstripped by Holyrood. The Scottish lobbying register, started in 2018, focuses not on consultancies but the activity of lobbying itself.

In Scotland, you must register as a lobbyist if you are a consultancy, you work in-house for a company lobbying directly on their behalf, or ‘lobby regularly’ which captures unions and charities. They must disclose who was lobbied, when it took place, who did the lobbying and the subject matter that was discussed.

What is counted as lobbying in Holyrood is more expansive than in Westminster. It includes the lobbying of not only Scottish Ministers but all MSPs, their staff and senior civil servants. So, the register doesn’t just focus on top-level Ministers, but where real influencing happens. In the background.

The Scottish solution is proportionate and aims not to discourage lobbying but bring it into the light. By no means is the Scottish register perfect, there are still loopholes, but they have created a public, searchable record of influence, not just a list of names.

We need a real lobbying register for Westminster

With trust in politics at an all-time low and our rankings in corruption registers slipping, this is not a trajectory we can afford to continue. Our politics is being left at the mercy of powerful individuals, which is fuelling public cynicism and disengagement. Without a lobbying register that meets the scale of the practice, the back corridors of Westminster will remain in the shadows.

The upcoming Representation of the People Bill is an opportunity to rectify this situation and bring us in line with the best practice. When it comes to politics, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Support the Electoral Reform Society

International bankers don’t ring ministers on our behalf. Every contribution, however small, supports our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system. Support the Electoral Reform Society from as little as £2 a month – it only takes a minute. Thank you.

Join the Electoral Reform Society

Polling published in the last few weeks reveals that the British public are worried about the influence of money in politics, with a majority wanting to see the introduction of caps on donations to political parties.  

A Survation poll, conducted between 9-11 December 2025, on behalf of 38 Degrees, found that 57% of people support the introduction of a cap on the amount of money individuals or companies can donate to parties, while just 7% were against. 

Separate polling by YouGov (27-29 December 2025), shows that just 13% of people think that individuals should be allowed to give as much as they wish to political parties. Similarly, 9% think business should be allowed to give as much as they wish.

The case for a donation cap  

We strongly support the introduction of a cap on financial donations to political parties. At present a single donor can give an unlimited amount of money to a party at any time. There is nothing to stop a multi-billionaire donating £100 million (or more) to a political party. It should not be possible for anyone to buy that much influence in our democracy. 

As we highlighted recently, a donation cap could be set at different levels and there is an option to set it at a relatively high level initially with the intention that this is reduced at a later date. The most important thing, however, is that the principle of a cap is established. This is a normal part of the democratic landscape in many democratic countries. 

The government published a policy paper on democracy and elections, in July 2025. This committed the government to bringing forward an Elections Bill, with the widely held expectation that this will be laid before parliament in the next few months.  

The policy paper included many welcome proposals to strengthen the rules around donations to political parties. These include making it impossible for ‘shell companies’ who do not carry out genuine commercial activity in the UK, to donate to political parties and tightening rules around donations from untransparent unincorporated associations. 

The upcoming Elections Bill should include a cap on donations 

Something that did not make it into the policy paper, however, was any proposal to put a limit on the amount that any one individual or business can donate to political parties. 

The forthcoming Elections Bill is the perfect opportunity for the government to introduce such a measure. That is why we are joining with organisations such as Transparency International and Spotlight on Corruption to urge the government to include a cap on donations to political parties in their legislation. If they do so they will be introducing a common sense policy that will help protect the fabric of our democracy in the years ahead, and as we have seen above, will be going with the grain of public opinion on this issue. 

Do you agree? Add your name to our call.

Click here to demand the government put donation caps in their upcoming Elections Bill >

In the UK today, there is still no legal limit on how much a single donor can give to a political party each year. That simple fact shapes our politics in profound ways. When unlimited money flows into campaigns from a small group of exceptionally wealthy individuals, it becomes harder for the rest of us to get our voices heard.

Introducing a clear cap on political donations is one of the most effective steps we could take to rebuild trust. With the upcoming Elections Bill, the government has an opportunity to put a donations cap into law.

The question is not whether to cap donations, but where the cap should be set. To understand what is at stake, it helps to look at three possible levels: a high cap of £1,000,000, a mid-level cap of £100,000 and a lower cap of £10,000.

Politics should never be a personal project for the ultra-rich

Setting a donation cap as high as £1,000,000 per year may seem ludicrously generous. In some ways, that is the point. It would still allow political parties to receive sizeable contributions, but it would put a clear boundary around the influence of the very wealthiest citizens.

In recent years, donations of over a million pounds have become common place. Just today, Reform UK were given £9,000,000 by Christopher Harborne, their largest single donation ever, and the largest donation ever from a living donor. The largest single donation ever was £10,000,000 for the Conservatives from Lord John Sainsbury’s will in 2023. The largest donation for the Liberal Democrats was £8,000,000 from Lord David Sainsbury in 2019, while Labour’s was £4,000,000 from Quadrature Capital Ltd in 2024.

With no ceiling at all on how much a wealthy person could give, even larger donations are permissible. Under a cap like this, no individual could single-handedly bankroll a party. That matters. It stops political parties becoming personal vehicles for those who can afford to pour vast sums into the system, and treat political parties like just another yacht or island.

We can reduce elite influence

A cap at £100,000 changes the dynamic more significantly. Contributions at this level can still be generous, but they are no longer so large that a party can revolve around a handful of donors on first name terms with the party leaders.

Under a £100,000 cap, parties would need a broader donor base. This is a model that begins to rebalance power. It reduces the risk that policy priorities are driven by the financial interests of a small elite, and instead are focused on the health of the broader economy. It is a step towards a healthier political culture.

Towards a fairer democracy

The Committee on Standards in Public Life has previously recommended a £10,000 cap on donations from any individual or organisation in any year. Let’s be blunt, the vast majority of people would not be able to donate this kind of money. But a cap of £10,000 would end the era in which political parties can rely on rich benefactors.

That means engaging with more people, building membership and relying less on the biggest cheques. When parties depend on a wider pool of supporters, their incentives change. They must spend more time listening and responding to the concerns of ordinary voters, not just those who can afford to give more.

As Parliament considers reforms to electoral law, this is the moment to commit to a donation cap – meaningful reform starts with limiting how much any one donor can give.

Add your name to demand the Elections Bill includes a donation cap

A million pounds here, a few hundred thousand there. Life-changing sums for most of us. Yet in the world of political finance, these are the figures some individuals can casually drop into party coffers.

It should never become normal for that kind of money to set the political weather. But increasingly, it is.

People donate large sums because they see it as a good investment. Sometimes it’s about business interests. Sometimes it’s about shaping the country to match their own ideals. But whatever the motive, one thing is clear: in a healthy democracy, no one should be able to buy a louder voice.

That’s why we have long argued for a cap on political donations.

Why unchecked donations are a problem

For years, the concern was simple enough: wealthy individuals could secure access, steer conversations, or help nudge a policy in a direction that suited them. That was already a problem.

But now a new dynamic is emerging. The ultra-wealthy are in the position not just to influence a political movement, but to bankroll one entirely. When one person can become the sole funder of a party or campaign, the balance breaks. Politics becomes less about what benefits society and more about what benefits the person writing the cheque.

A system that works for everyone

A donation cap is a straightforward safeguard. It stops any one person from dominating the finances of a party. It limits the risk of policy becoming a private commodity. And it helps bring politics back into the realm of shared interests rather than private leverage.

Other democracies already do this. They recognise that fairness isn’t automatic, it’s the result of rules designed to protect it. The UK should be no different.

The Elections Bill is a critical moment for change

The government is working on a new Elections Bill. This is a rare opportunity to build a system that reflects democratic values, not wealth and power.

We should be clear about what’s at stake. Without a cap, political parties can start to look like trophies, another yacht, another island, for those who can afford them. Influence becomes something to collect. That’s not how democracy should work.

Public opinion is firmly on our side: a poll earlier in the year found that 60% of people support a cap on political donations.

What we can do now

A donation cap is simple, fair, and long overdue. It protects parties. It protects voters. And it protects the principle that political power should be shared, not concentrated in the hands of those with the deepest pockets.

This is the moment to act. If you believe our politics should reflect all of us, not just a wealthy few, join us in calling for a donation cap to be included in the Elections Bill. Together, we can help build a system where everyone’s voice counts.

Add your name to demand donations caps in the Elections Bill

In a statement to parliament today, the democracy minister set out the changes the government plans to make in the forthcoming elections bill.

Last week we set out what we hoped to see in the legislation, and it is great to see so many of those democratic reforms confirmed by today’s statement.

Thanks to your support, we are now going to see some hugely positive steps towards improving our democracy.

Extending the franchise

This highly anticipated bill will make the historic move to extend the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds, something we have long campaigned for. We know that engaging young people in democracy, alongside improved democratic education and support, makes long-term improvements to participation and engagement, and not just for young people.

A registration revolution

Alongside this, the government confirmed their intention to improve voter registration. We have consistently been making the case for a modernised and more automated registration system to make it simple for voters. The UK’s registration system lags other countries and puts up unnecessary barriers for voters. We need to get the missing millions on the register and this will help to do so.

A reassessment of the unnecessary voter ID scheme

After a long campaign highlighting the unnecessary and damaging impact of compulsory photographic voter ID, it is great to see that the government has listened and will be making significant changes to the scheme to scrap the need for photo ID and move to allowing the types of non-photographic ID that voters will have access to, such as bank cards.

This is something we have been pressing for, and it will go a long way to reducing the damage of this unnecessary scheme.

Tackling dodgy money in politics

If dark money can buy influence, it damages our democratic institutions. And right now, that’s a real risk.

Measures to tighten political finance loopholes to ensure that impermissible donations cannot sneak into our politics and measures to strengthen the Electoral Commission’s ability to enforce the rules are also crucial in protecting our democracy.

Your support is backing our campaign

Thanks to your support, today we have moved a step closer to a democracy that works for everyone. You can support our work further by becoming a member.

Members support our work in parliament, in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Become a Member

One year on from the General Election and we are eagerly awaiting the government’s Elections Bill, expected to be tabled in the next session of this parliament.

The bill is likely to contain measures, promised in the manifesto, on extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, improving voter registration and strengthening the rules around political donations.

We would welcome these changes. Reforms to ensure everyone can access their vote and to reduce the influence of money in our politics cannot come soon enough.

With just over half of eligible voters participating in last year’s General Election, the need for bold, effective change is clear. The Elections Bill offers a real opportunity to upgrade our electoral arrangements and begin to address these problems – and it must not be wasted.

Here’s what we believe the Elections Bill must include to strengthen our democracy:

Votes at 16

Research shows that the earlier someone is engaged in a democratic process the more likely they are to continue to engage throughout their life. Lowering the voting age to 16 and strengthening citizenship education can help nurture more active citizens for the future health of our democracy. 16 and 17 year olds in Scotland and Wales can already vote in national and local elections and where people see votes at 16 in action, they don’t want to go back.

Automatic Voter Registration

Our estimates have found that up to 7.6 million eligible voters are missing from the electoral registers in England and Wales. Numbers vary across constituencies but in the worst areas, up to a fifth of potential voters may not be on the register. Automatic registration would see electoral administrators populate the register from existing data sources before confirming with voters and ensure fewer voters miss out on their chance to participate.

Constituency boundaries

One of the impacts of incomplete electoral rolls is that, with parliamentary boundaries drawn on the basis of registered electors, constituency boundaries are not truly representative of their populations and not all citizens or eligible electors are counted. We support boundaries being based on more accurate data to truly reflect constituency size.

Repeal Voter ID rules

Since the introduction of voter ID, over 40,000 potential voters have been turned away from polling stations and not returned. And that’s just those we know about. Many more have stayed at home and for some voters, such as those with a disability, the scheme has had a greater impact.  Voter ID is putting up another barrier to people who are already likely to be less engaged in democracy and may already find it difficult to participate. This disproportionate and unnecessary policy should be scrapped. If the Voter ID requirement is not removed, significant changes should be made, such as expanding the types of accepted ID and allowing for declarations on the day.

Cleaning up political finance

A fifth of all major political donations in the two decades between 2001 and 2021 came from just 10 individuals. With party finding so reliant on so few there is a real risk that our politics can be bought by the highest bidder. We need a level playing field, where all voters feel they have a stake in our democracy not just those with the deepest pockets. There is also much that can be done to improve transparency and protect our democracy from foreign funding such as introducing a risk-based ‘know-your-donor’ policy; closing the loopholes around donations from unincorporated associations and improving transparency on donations and spending.

Strengthen enforcement

For any rules to be effective, we need effective enforcement and monitoring. We are strongly opposed to ministerial involvement in setting the Electoral Commission’s strategy as part of the ‘Strategy and Policy Statement’ introduced in the Elections Act 2022. The Electoral Commission should have the powers it needs to obtain and share information to ensure compliance and there should be an increase in the maximum fine it is able to levy.

Fair votes

Ultimately addressing disengagement and disempowerment means giving voice to voters and to their local communities and this cannot happen without also making changes at Westminster. After the most disproportional election in British electoral history, it is time our political system valued every vote and every voter in every part of the country and moved to a proportional electoral system.

For Mayors too, moving from a preferential system to FPTP was a huge mistake in the last Elections Bill and one that could be righted with a move back to the Supplementary Vote (SV) or to the Alternative Vote (AV).

We need to rebuild our democracy to put it on stronger foundations for the future and ensure everyone can participate. The Elections Bill is an opportunity to begin this process and we will be calling on the government to ensure it does just that.

A key moment to improve our democracy

This Elections Bill represents a welcome opportunity to modernise our democracy and restore public confidence in the political process. By expanding participation, improving transparency, and strengthening oversight, the government can help ensure that our elections are fair, inclusive, and fit for the 21st century.

But reforms on paper are only the beginning – what matters is meaningful action. As the Bill moves through Parliament, we’ll be watching closely to ensure it delivers on its promises and truly puts voters at the heart of our democracy.

You can support our work by joining as a member

As momentum builds for electoral reform, your support is more important than ever. Our members support our work in parliament like this, as well as in the press and online – making the case, and backing it up – for how we can fix Westminster’s broken system.

Support us today from just £2 a month

Political parties cost money to run. In the UK, they’re funded by a variety of sources, including membership fees, grants, and donations. Donations come from individuals, companies, and trade unions.

The Electoral Commission reported that in 2024 alone, parties accepted almost £100m in donations. That’s a vast quantity of money flowing into our politics. What’s more, these donations aren’t just the product of small donations accumulating from lots of supporters. In fact, a fifth of all major donations in the decades between 2001 and 2021 came from a mere ten ‘big donors’.

The existence of these big donors raises a worrying question: how much sway might they have over our politics? In a democracy, those with the deepest pockets shouldn’t be able to pay for influence.

With a never-ending stream of financial scandals in politics, party funding is out of control. Surely we should be able to put a limit on an individual’s power through their purse?

Do we have political donation caps in the UK?

When a small number of the wealthiest individuals and organisations can fund election campaigns and the running of political parties, we are opened up to a culture of politics for sale.

Yet at the moment, there is no limit on the amount of money any one person or organisation can donate. And this means there’s no limit on just how much influence can be bought.

By introducing a cap on donations, the Government could finally bring about an end to toxic big donor culture. Political influence would be fairly shared amongst all of us, not concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest few.

Donations are regulated – but the rules don’t go far enough

Fortunately, some rules are in place to regulate political donations. These include the requirement that donations or loans over £11,180 must be reported, and limitations on who can donate.

But these rules don’t go far enough. There are loopholes which allow individuals and organisations to avoid this reporting threshold.

Loopholes muddy the already murky waters of political donations, pointing to an especially pressing need for donation caps. With money flowing into politics from often secretive sources, it’s crucial that the spending of any one person or organisation is limited.

We need tighter limits on political donations

To stop the outsize influence of wealth on our politics, we need donation rules to be tightened. This includes the urgent need for donation caps.

If the Government wants to ensure that we, the voters, trust our democratic institutions, it needs to start with ending the reign of big donors. We need assurance that everyone’s voice carries equal weight – something difficult to believe when power is for sale to the highest bidder.

Agree that politics shouldn’t be for sale? Add your name.

Earlier this month the Electoral Commission heads appeared before a House of Commons select committee with stark warnings about the dangers of failing to address the problems with political finance. Commenting on the existing rules EC Chair John Pullinger said that the system has “a series of weaknesses that do need to be addressed now, if we are not to face some even more damaging consequences for public trust in the system.”

It’s time to tackle big money in politics

At the Electoral Reform Society, we have long argued that big money is a problem for politics and the current political finance rules are in desperate need of updating.

We agree with the Electoral Commission’s call for reform, particularly in three key areas:

1. Preventing foreign profits from influencing UK politics – companies shouldn’t be able to donate money not made in the UK.
2. Closing donation loopholes – increasing transparency, especially around donations from unincorporated associations
3. Introducing ‘know your donor’ checks – so parties properly screen who’s funding them.

But it shouldn’t stop there, it’s important that we prevent impermissible donations from overseas and guard against foreign influence, but we also need to address the impact of legal but potentially damaging, large scale donations.

A handful of donors are holding too much power

Party funding remains dominated by the big spenders – in the two decades between 2001 and 2021, a fifth of all major political came from just 10 individuals. That’s not healthy for our democracy – so few voices shouldn’t carry that much power.

That is why it is so encouraging to see this issue raised in parliament last week with a new Private Member’s Bill tabled on political donations. This bill, put forward by the MP for Stratford-Upon-Avon, Manuela Perteghella, seeks to place a cap on political donations. Introducing the bill they said, “Introducing a cap on political donations is not about limiting participation; it is about making sure that every vote, every voice and every citizen matters equally in our political system.”

We couldn’t agree more. A donations cap is a crucial tool in ensuring our politics cannot be bought by the highest bidder.

Voters want action

Our research shows that voters are deeply concerned about the impact of money in politics. In fact, big money is the top electoral integrity concern among the public. And it’s easy to see why – Electoral Commissions data reveals that confidence in financial transparency has been in long-term, steady decline. Last year, only 15% of people agreed that political spending and funding is transparent.

When people believe that money can buy influence, it damages trust in our democratic institutions. And right now, that trust is already running low.

It’s time to fix the system. We need bold reforms to political finance – because democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthiest few.

Do you want to ensure that it’s ordinary voters, not big donors, that are calling the shots?

Add your name to make your voice heard →