For all the failings of modern British politics, one virtue has largely remained: big money plays little role in deciding our elections. We stand in stark contrast to the United States, where this year’s midterms — in which the House of Representatives and roughly a third of the Senate will be elected — are forecast to cost $11.6 billion in advertising alone. Such spending in America dwarfs campaigns in Britain, where the entire 2024 election ran up a bill of just £94.5 million — just £2 for every eligible voter.

The news that two of Reform UK’s biggest backers are donating £36 million each to Nigel Farage’s party is a sign that British politics might be about to become more American. Ben Delo, who along with fellow mega-donor Christopher Harborne, made money through cryptocurrencies, said the donation would create a “level playing field” between Reform UK and the more established parties. Some in those parties worry it’s actually an attempt to buy the next election for Farage.

It would be too defeatist (or triumphalist, depending on your perspective) to conclude that these donations mean the next election is already over. In fact, history suggests that large donations can leave the electorate unwooed. Michael Crick has reported that James Goldsmith, founder of the Referendum Party, donated around £40 million (around £80 million today) to his nascent political outfit in the Nineties. His money enabled the party to contest the vast majority of constituencies in the 1997 election, but the reward for his spending spree was zero seats and just 2.6% of the vote.

How can so much money produce so little? A major factor is Britain’s campaign laws. Although the rules for how much parties can receive in donations are pretty lax, how they can spend it is another matter. In the regulated campaign period leading up to the last election, a party contesting every seat in Great Britain could spend around £34 million on party campaigning, with candidates subject to separate spending limits.

Between now and the next election, however, these donations will have an impact on our politics — both inside Reform and beyond. Many of Reform’s supporters will be cheering this financial injection, but enormous donations to party headquarters will likely leave the ordinary party member feeling more irrelevant. Our traditional parties have never overcome the need to fundraise from their members and affiliates, with trade union levies (in Labour) and donor clubs and speaker dinners (for the Tories) still an essential part of the fundraising mix. With tens of millions rolling in, Reform no longer needs their members’ money in the same way. And with that, the membership is likely to lose some of its influence.

For the other parties, the need to keep up with Farage’s war chest could change the way they operate. Labour is already tapping into its supporters’ fear that the crypto-billionaires are setting Farage on course for Number 10 by asking for donations as small as £3. At that rate, they will have to persuade a lot of voters to open up their wallets before they can match the funds Farage now has. The alternative to persuading their supporters to donate en masse will be spending more time recruiting their own rich donors.

In the US, the relentless need to fundraise for campaigns means individual legislators are forced to “dial for dollars”, with members of Congress sometimes subjected to targets and told to raise thousands of dollars every day. Such are the consequences of big-money politics. If Reform’s record-breaking donations mean Britain’s political parties now have to spend more time fundraising, then our politics will have become a lot more American — and will be worse for it.

---

Lee David Evans is an historian of the Conservative Party and the John Ramsden Fellow at the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary, University of London. He is the author of Coronations & Defenestration: Choosing (and losing) Tory Leaders and the co-host of the podcast Since Attlee & Churchill.

LeeDavidEvansUK

---