This measure strengthened the provisions of PPERA by increasing the powers of the Electoral Commission and placing further requirements on parties and donors to clarify the source of donations. Major donations or loans can only come from UK residents.

These are agreed to be the fairest and most transparent method of funding. Large numbers paying small amounts ensures that no single donor gets undue influence. The problem is that party memberships are not by themselves large enough to sustain the level of finance required to fund professionally run national campaigns, post ads on billboards and increasingly on social media, or organise effective policy research.

all main parties have often relied on generous individual or institutional donors. In the Blair years, Labour benefited from wealthy individuals, such as Bernie Ecclestone (chief executive of the Formula One Group) and Lord Sainsbury, although traditionally, and more recently under Jeremy Corbyn, the party has been heavily bankrolled by affiliated trade unions, including GMB and Unite (which gave over £3 million in 2019). The Conservatives have also benefited from generous donors, with the party raising more than £5.67 million in large donations in the first week of the 2019 election campaign, including £200,000 from Lubov Chernukhin, the wife of a Russian business person. Smaller parties can also receive large donations on occasion — business person Christopher Harborne donated £2 million towards the Brexit Party’s 2019 campaign.

the final option for party funding is state funding based upon ‘pence-per-vote’ or ‘pence-per-member’. Parties can receive public funds through Policy Development Grants (£2 million in total annually), which are available to parties with at least two sitting members of the House of Commons who have taken the oath of allegiance. They can also receive Short (Commons) and Cranborne (Lords) money, which is paid to opposition parties to help with their administrative work in providing effective scrutiny of the government in parliament. Parties also receive indirect help through free television airtime for party election broadcasts, and free postage for one piece of campaign literature during elections. However, some have argued that there should be greater state funding of political parties.

State money would be ‘clean’ without the dependence on wealthy donors and interest groups who may expect something in return, whether in the form of honours or policies.

It would enable politicians to focus on representing constituents and developing policies that benefit the entire nation as opposed to cosying up to potential donors.

It could provide a greater sense of equality between the parties. The Conservatives considerably outraised all their rivals in 2019.

Other attempts to regulate party funding and eradicate allegations of corruption have largely failed. Both the independent 2007 Phillips report ‘Strengthening Democracy’ and the 2011 Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended greater state funding of parties. .

If parties had state funding that matched their vote, it would encourage them to campaign in all seats to increase the party vote and not just in the key marginals, which would help democracy overall.

State funding would make it easier to limit overall spending on elections, much of which goes on advertising and could be reined in.

If funding was matched to small donations, it would encourage parties to seek more money from all their supporters, not just the wealthiest

Voters should not fund parties with which they disagree, and there are many better areas on which to spend taxpayers’ money, such as health and education.

Parties could become isolated from the ‘real world’ if links and donations with interest groups were cut.

There will always be inequality in party funding. Some parties are larger and more popular than others. What matters is that everyone is equally able to join and give as they wish.

Politics should be treated as an extension of the free market and the right to donate is a basic democratic right, provided it is made openly and major donors are identified.

Funding based on the existing share of the vote merely strengthens the larger parties and makes it more difficult for smaller parties to get off the ground. Smaller parties, already disadvantaged by FPTP, would be hit again.

State funding would make parties too dependent on the state and less incentivised to actively recruit members. Funding could also be manipulated by the governing party for its own benefit