Public attitudes to how political parties are funded

Many participants began with limited knowledge of the current rules and low levels of trust in political parties. As they learned more through the workshops, they showed consistent views about what they wanted to see from an improved system.

Participants told us that the political finance system should serve the interests of voters rather than donors. They want the rules to help prevent undue influence on parties and their policies from wealthy individuals, foreign actors and companies.  

People do not want rules that make it hard for newer or smaller parties to compete on a ‘level playing field’ with larger or more established parties. They also want to know that the system has proper deterrents against rule-breaking and, if this happens, that the rules would be enforced.

Participants were asked to give points to a combination of six potential reforms that they would recommend to build trust in the system. They were most convinced by four options:

• introducing a donation limit
• increasing public funding
• closing loopholes
• increasing the maximum fine we can impose

Most (93%) participants agreed that if their top three preferred options were adopted, it would help build trust in the political finance system. 

Introducing donation limits

Participants felt that the absence of donation limits directly contributed to the perception that money buys influence within the political system. However, there was also real debate about what limits would achieve. Some felt that the key issue was not the amount of money but what it buys – they saw transparency about donor intent to be equally important. Participants were clear that donation limits would only be effective if combined with closing loopholes.

Closing loopholes

Participants were concerned about the potential for workarounds to the current rules. These concerns included:

• donors splitting their donations to avoid having to report them
• money being routed through multiple companies
• foreign influence being hidden through UK-registered entities

The question of who should be responsible for checking for rule-breaking also generated significant debate. Most increasingly favoured independent regulation during discussion, largely driven by a distrust of self-policing by parties. 

Larger fines for rule-breaking

Our current maximum fine of £20,000 was seen by nearly all as too low. Most participants felt penalties needed to be related to the size of the violation and the size of the party. Many also felt that monetary fines alone are insufficient. Participants’ ideas for additional deterrents included criminal consequences and temporary bans.

Openness to increased public funding

As participants considered the issues through the workshops, there was a shift in openness to public funding for political parties.  

Participants did not arrive open to this idea, but exposure to international comparisons made a difference to their views. They saw the benefits of increased public funding as:

• a system that would be less reliant on wealthy donors
• the potential for higher public engagement in politics

However, participants were also aware of the challenge as current low levels of trust in political parties makes increasing public funding difficult.

Reducing election spending and lowering reporting thresholds didn't change the levels of public trust

Participants were asked to consider whether:

• reducing election spending
• lowering reporting thresholds

would help improve public trust. These options did not emerge as priorities when weighted against other approaches.

During deliberations participants felt that privacy for smaller individual donors was generally reasonable, but took a different view for donations from businesses.