Elections Watchdog Urges Legal Reforms to Block Potential £80 Million Elon Musk Donation

[Social Media]

 

The UK’s elections watchdog is advocating for changes in electoral law that could prevent Elon Musk from making a substantial £80 million donation to Nigel Farage's Reform Party. This call for reform arises amid speculation that the billionaire entrepreneur is considering a significant financial contribution to transform Reform into a formidable political force.  

 

 

Talks between Musk and Farage reportedly took place earlier this week at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Farage confirmed that “the issue of money was discussed” and indicated there would be “ongoing negotiations on that score.” Reports suggest Musk, one of the wealthiest individuals in the world, is mulling over a donation of up to $100 million (£80 million) to strengthen Reform's campaign to challenge Labour in the next general election.  

 

Musk has been an outspoken critic of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, particularly over his response to recent riots. According to Farage, Musk views both Labour and the Conservatives as part of a political “uniparty” and has expressed strong support for the Reform Party. Farage remarked that Musk “left us in no doubt that he is right behind us.”  

 

As a foreign citizen, Musk is barred from directly donating to political parties in the UK. However, under existing rules, he could channel funds through one of his UK-based companies. This loophole has prompted the Electoral Commission to call for tighter regulations to ensure donations from foreign individuals or entities are restricted to money generated within the UK.  

 

Electoral Commission Chief Executive Vijay Rangarajan stressed the importance of public confidence in the political funding process, stating, “It’s crucial that UK voters have trust in the financing of our political system, so they need to see how parties and campaigners are financed and how they spend that money at elections.” Rangarajan confirmed that the Commission is discussing these proposals with the government.  

 

Downing Street acknowledged that electoral law reform is under consideration, though it is not a legislative priority in the current parliamentary session. The Prime Minister’s official spokesman also emphasized Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer’s commitment to safeguarding democracy, stating that he is “committed to protecting democracy from the threat of foreign interference by strengthening the rules around donations.”  

 

With discussions ongoing, the proposed reforms could have significant implications for the future of political funding in the UK, potentially limiting the influence of wealthy foreign donors like Musk. The debate underscores growing concerns over transparency and fairness in electoral financing, as the UK seeks to protect its democratic processes from external interference.  

 

Based on a report by Daily Mail 2024-12-20

 

 

 

[deadbeat]

Labour received millions from overseas individuals, maybe even Soros, so this will be a tough one for them to square without accusations of hypocricy.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, deadbeat said:

Labour received millions from overseas individuals, maybe even Soros, so this will be a tough one for them to square without accusations of hypocricy.

Source please.

[Chomper Higgot]

6 minutes ago, deadbeat said:

Labour received millions from overseas individuals, maybe even Soros, so this will be a tough one for them to square without accusations of hypocricy.

Links please.

[stevenl]

Even if they manage to prevent a donation like this, musk will be able to influence via X.

[johnnybangkok]

14 minutes ago, deadbeat said:

Labour received millions from overseas individuals, maybe even Soros, so this will be a tough one for them to square without accusations of hypocricy.

I cannot find a single thing to support this assertion so either post a link or withdraw your comment.

 

Quire rightly, foreign citizens are barred from directly donating to political parties in the UK (and it's rigourously checked by The Electoral Commission) so unless you have some corroborated evidence (which I very much doubt), then you're just spreading conspiracy theories. 

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/political-party-donations-and-loans-great-britain

 

[johnnybangkok]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Even if they manage to prevent a donation like this, musk will be able to influence via X.

Another good reason to not subscribe to that disgrace of a social network.

[jippytum]

I hope Elon is allowed to make the donation. Why not

Rupert Murdock influenzed many a UK Election. 

Starmer sent 100 labour supporters to the States to canvass for Harris pre US election. 

Farage would shake up UKPolitics and the only man i would back to stop the Brexit u turn by Starmer and take strict action against illegal immigration. 

[James105]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

I cannot find a single thing to support this assertion so either post a link or withdraw your comment.

 

Quire rightly, foreign citizens are barred from directly donating to political parties in the UK (and it's rigourously checked by The Electoral Commission) so unless you have some corroborated evidence (which I very much doubt), then you're just spreading conspiracy theories. 

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/political-party-donations-and-loans-great-britain

 

 

Do tax dodging Caymen Island hedge funds count as overseas investment?

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-given-4m-from-tax-haven-based-hedge-fund-with-shares-in-oil-and-arms/

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, jippytum said:

I hope Elon is allowed to make the donation. Why not

Rupert Murdock influenzed many a UK Election. 

Starmer sent 100 labour supporters to the States to canvass for Harris pre US election. 

Farage would shake up UKPolitics and the only man i would back to stop the Brexit u turn by Starmer and take strict action against illegal immigration. 

I think you’ve just provided the reason why Musk should be renter from interfering in UK politics.

[blazes]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think you’ve just provided the reason why Musk should be renter from interfering in UK politics.

 

What exactly are you trying to say there?

[Chomper Higgot]

36 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

What exactly are you trying to say there?

Sorry Blazes, I really need to turn my auto text off.

 

“I think you’ve [jippytum] just provided the reason why Musk should be prevented from interfering in UK politics.

 

[loong]

6 hours ago, deadbeat said:

Labour received millions from overseas individuals, maybe even Soros, so this will be a tough one for them to square without accusations of hypocricy.

 

So far, they don't seem bothered about accusations of hypocrisy!

[RuamRudy]

Forget that it's Farage and consider the overall implication of allowing mega rich foreigners to interfere in our democratic process. Should we allow Chinese or Qatari billionaires to do likewise? 

 

Regardless of which country they come from, they wouldn't be doing so because they want the best for the country and it's citizens, that's for sure. 

[herfiehandbag]

Personally I think that Reform would be foolish to accept funds from Musk - particularly in view of the way he has inveigled himself, without any electoral participation or confirmation, into the highest echelons of the incoming US administration. I think it would backfire spectacularly with the British Electorate, particularly that part of it which Reform is courting.

 

However I think that the Electoral Commission would be immediately better employed reviewing the suggestions by government that a number of local elections should be cancelled in the spring of 2025 - that, I would suggest, is at least as great a threat to the integrity  of the democratic process in the UK as interference by Musk.

[UWEB]

Today, Musk has started interfering in the upcoming German elections and supporting the NSAFD Fascists in Germany.

[Peabody]

27 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

However I think that the Electoral Commission would be immediately better employed reviewing the suggestions by government that a number of local elections should be cancelled in the spring of 2025 - that, I would suggest, is at least as great a threat to the integrity  of the democratic process in the UK as interference by Musk.

Serious question: I am not so attuned to UK politics. Why would they cancel local elections? Can they even do that, legally?

 

[herfiehandbag]

23 minutes ago, Peabody said:

Serious question: I am not so attuned to UK politics. Why would they cancel local elections? Can they even do that, legally?

 

Local elections are due to be held across swathes of England in May. I am unsure about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The ruling Labour Westminster Government, whose popularity has collapsed spectacularly in the six months since they won power, and are accordingly expecting and expected to lose a great many local council seats in these local elections, are considering cancelling these elections in a number of councils, as they are "planning reorganisations of these local authorities".

 

Put bluntly, and perhaps simplistically, the UK relies constitutionally, on the Government "doing the right thing"; in this case facing the electorate. The suspicion is that they intend to "dodge" facing the electorate, using the excuse of future reorganisations. Can they do it? They have a massive parliamentary majority, notwithstanding the collapse in public support, and Parliament is sovereign, so yes, they can, despite it not being " the right thing".

[Peabody]

30 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Put bluntly, and perhaps simplistically, the UK relies constitutionally, on the Government "doing the right thing";

That used to be what we depended on in the US, too!  🙂

 

[Luuk Chaai]

5 hours ago, Peabody said:

That used to be what we depended on in the US, too!  🙂

 

 

so a few weeks ago Trump stuck a zinger in Trudeau ..making a crack that Canada should become the US 51st state ( yes it was a joke )

seeing as how Britain’s local governments are at ‘serious’ risk of ‘widespread collapse’ ( actual headline)

go for a double....  make them the  52nd state and Farage could become the governor.

hear that ...???   it's the sound of 68.35 million sphincters going into spasm.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, Peabody said:

Serious question: I am not so attuned to UK politics. Why would they cancel local elections? Can they even do that, legally?

 

Labour have not cancelled local elections, they have announced that all regions shall have their own elected mayors and that where there are duplicated local/county councils these shall be merged.

 

These changes will hand more power to local government and reduce the current centralized government control of the regions.

 

These changes may delay some local elections, local elections have not been cancelled.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0xz4938z9o.amp

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/16/tories-cry-foul-as-overhaul-of-english-councils-may-delay-local-elections

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

Local elections are due to be held across swathes of England in May. I am unsure about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The ruling Labour Westminster Government, whose popularity has collapsed spectacularly in the six months since they won power, and are accordingly expecting and expected to lose a great many local council seats in these local elections, are considering cancelling these elections in a number of councils, as they are "planning reorganisations of these local authorities".

 

Put bluntly, and perhaps simplistically, the UK relies constitutionally, on the Government "doing the right thing"; in this case facing the electorate. The suspicion is that they intend to "dodge" facing the electorate, using the excuse of future reorganisations. Can they do it? They have a massive parliamentary majority, notwithstanding the collapse in public support, and Parliament is sovereign, so yes, they can, despite it not being " the right thing".

That argument conflates local and national Government.

 

A more accurate example of the misuse of the raw power of Government is the prorogation of Parliament. I can’t be bothered to check but I have a suspicion those affronted by likely delays to some local elections were supporters of the overthrow of Parliament’s sovereignty by prorogation.

 

 

[NedR69]

19 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Another good reason to not subscribe to that disgrace of a social network.

 

[herfiehandbag]

48 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Labour have not cancelled local elections, they have announced that all regions shall have their own elected mayors and that where there are duplicated local/county councils these shall be merged.

 

These changes will hand more power to local government and reduce the current centralized government control of the regions.

 

These changes may delay some local elections, local elections have not been cancelled.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn0xz4938z9o.amp

 

https://amp.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/16/tories-cry-foul-as-overhaul-of-english-councils-may-delay-local-elections

You really do have a marvellous encyclopaedic knowledge of links for just about every topic which touches upon UK political topics don't you.

 

Years ago I remember ( had some dealings with) the "news clipping agencies". They worked by collating all available press articles, one registered an interest and you could have access to all those articles.

 

I know that Labour (and almost certainly the other parties) maintain an electronic version of such a database - I remember reading the job description for its manager, some time ago.

 

So how does it work Chomper, do you call up your handlers, tell them that the "awkward squad" on the board you monitor has said "x y z", and they supply you with the links to answer it?

 

Or do you devote every waking moment to reading and noting a wide variety of publications (some behind paywalls)? It must be quite a challenge, there are after all only 24 hours in a day!

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

You really do have a marvellous encyclopaedic knowledge of links for just about every topic which touches upon UK political topics don't you.

 

Years ago I remember ( had some dealings with) the "news clipping agencies". They worked by collating all available press articles, one registered an interest and you could have access to all those articles.

 

I know that Labour (and almost certainly the other parties) maintain an electronic version of such a database - I remember reading the job description for its manager, some time ago.

 

So how does it work Chomper, do you call up your handlers, tell them that the "awkward squad" on the board you monitor has said "x y z", and they supply you with the links to answer it?

 

Or do you devote every waking moment to reading and noting a wide variety of publications (some behind paywalls)? It must be quite a challenge, there are after all only 24 hours in a day!

My you have fertile imagination.

 

I’m about to spend the next 4 waking hours on cycling ride.

 

You enjoy those few hours posting stuff and I’ll respond when I get back.

 

 

[johnnybangkok]

22 hours ago, James105 said:

 

Do tax dodging Caymen Island hedge funds count as overseas investment?

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/labour-given-4m-from-tax-haven-based-hedge-fund-with-shares-in-oil-and-arms/

I think your self-perceived 'gotcha' moment is highlighting the very point that's being debated. If your article is correct (big IF) then it's not from a person but rather a corporation which seems to be the issue as mentioned in the post above '...............................he could channel funds through one of his UK-based companies. This loophole has prompted the Electoral Commission to call for tighter regulations to ensure donations from foreign individuals or entities are restricted to money generated within the UK.'

 

Foreign donations, whether they be an individual or a corporation have no place in UK politics.   

[johnnybangkok]

4 hours ago, NedR69 said:

 

More identity politics........how very mature of you.

[James105]

32 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

I think your self-perceived 'gotcha' moment is highlighting the very point that's being debated. If your article is correct (big IF) then it's not from a person but rather a corporation which seems to be the issue as mentioned in the post above '...............................he could channel funds through one of his UK-based companies. This loophole has prompted the Electoral Commission to call for tighter regulations to ensure donations from foreign individuals or entities are restricted to money generated within the UK.'

 

Foreign donations, whether they be an individual or a corporation have no place in UK politics.   

 

I'm sure if the link I had posted was incorrect you would have found one that debunked it.  The big difference between Labour and Reform here is they are transparent about it.  Labour were very sneaky about receiving funds from a tax dodging Cayman islands hedge fund.  Labour are proven liars and have had visits from the likes of Bill Gates (USA largest private farmland owner) just before the farmers IHT was announced.  

 

Besides, why shouldn't Musk who has invested heavily into the UK and has companies that probably employ thousands of UK citizens not be able to support a political party?  How is this fundamentally different from the Unions that prop up Labour?  Aslef for example invested just £100,000 into Labour for a £135 million return on that investment with inflation busting pay rises for train drivers.   If your argument is zero political funding from anyone then I would agree with you, but pulling up the drawbridge to prevent an insurgent party from being able to compete on a level playing field with the "uni-party" is I would suggest, anti-democratic.   

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

I'm sure if the link I had posted was incorrect you would have found one that debunked it.  The big difference between Labour and Reform here is they are transparent about it.  Labour were very sneaky about receiving funds from a tax dodging Cayman islands hedge fund.  Labour are proven liars and have had visits from the likes of Bill Gates (USA largest private farmland owner) just before the farmers IHT was announced.  

 

Besides, why shouldn't Musk who has invested heavily into the UK and has companies that probably employ thousands of UK citizens not be able to support a political party?  How is this fundamentally different from the Unions that prop up Labour?  Aslef for example invested just £100,000 into Labour for a £135 million return on that investment with inflation busting pay rises for train drivers.   If your argument is zero political funding from anyone then I would agree with you, but pulling up the drawbridge to prevent an insurgent party from being able to compete on a level playing field with the "uni-party" is I would suggest, anti-democratic.   

First I would prefer absolutely no outside donations to any political parties ever, so we agree on that.

 

I cannot comment on the 'tax dodging Cayman islands hedge fund' but it seems to be a very good example of why both foreign individuals AND foreign corporations should be banned if it turns out to be true. But the reason why Musk and his ilk shouldn't be allowed is obviously because if you let one do it then others will follow; Saudi Sheiks (although they influence in other ways), religous extremists, other billionaires currying favour to their own ends - you would end up like America where essentially the government is bought and paid for by self interest groups such us Musk, the NRA, oil companies and many, many similar corporations. Their staggering wealth buys influence often at the detriment of ordinary people and that's plain wrong and shouldn't ever be allowed in the UK. 

 

Unions are quite a different thing altogether but I also don't think they should be allowed to donate but firstly they are at least British (a big point) and they represent working class British citizens so their self-interest is the interest of their membership. No-one should be allowed to pay political parties and neither should they be able to give gifts or expensive overseas trips but this has been tabled before and didn't succeed so I'm not going to hold my breath. Money should not play a part in policy but whilst there are glaring loop-holes such as the one this article highlights, then this looks likely to continue.