UIn most circumstances, British politicians seeking cash from foreign oligarchs will approach cautiously. Even if the deal could be done without breaking UK election law, recipients and donors would worry that the relationship would appear inappropriate.
Nigel Farage has no such concerns. The reformist leader boasted of a recent meeting with the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, at President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. Nick Candy, a former Conservative Party donor and current Treasurer of the Reform Party, also attended. Photographs and statements from the British visitors testify to their eagerness to ensure that this meeting, and the fact that money was discussed, received maximum attention.
Mr Musk has denied reports he is considering donating millions of pounds to the reforms. But he has proven willing to interfere in British politics. He used the X platform to attack Sir Keir Starmer, amplify radical right-wing rhetoric and post inflammatory statements including predictions of civil war in the aftermath of the summer’s riots.
It is inconceivable that someone of comparable influence in any country other than the United States could intervene so blatantly in British politics without causing a national scandal. If Mr Farage is not a likely beneficiary and the intervention is not in line with his prejudices, he will likely lead the protests. He did not hesitate to criticize then-US President Barack Obama for encouraging British voters to vote to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum.
There is a big difference between comments that could be seen as interfering in another country’s politics and money that could significantly influence the outcome of an election. There are rules against foreign donations, but they are not difficult to circumvent. The UK-registered arm of Mr Musk’s business empire could legally contribute to reformist campaign funds. Additionally, there is no limit to the amount you can donate. It is therefore entirely possible for a billionaire who is not resident in the UK or registered to vote in UK elections to have a significant economic impact on the scale of our democracy.
Labour’s election manifesto states that it will “defend democracy by tightening the rules around donations to political parties”, but what that means in practice is yet to be determined. No legislation has been prepared to enact this pledge. In recent years, public debate about the foreign destruction of British democracy has focused on covert operations by hostile states. The amount of Russian disinformation is increasingly recognized as a danger in online discourse. The recent scandal surrounding Prince Andrew’s involvement with a Chinese businessman accused of spying has drawn attention to the scale of Beijing’s efforts to infiltrate British institutions and influence policy.
It makes no sense to put overt intervention from the United States, a democracy and close ally, in the same category as covert subterfuge by a dictatorship. But that does not mean that there are no problems with the potential for US money to distort and corrupt British politics. Given the alliance’s historical closeness and common language, some degree of back-and-forth in policy and campaign styles from Washington to Westminster is inevitable. However, cultural overlap does not imply common jurisdiction. American billionaires throwing their rhetoric and economic weight behind political parties cannot and should never be accepted or normalized as part of the transatlantic political dialogue.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? Click here if you would like to email your answer of up to 300 words to be considered for publication in our email section.
