Foreign interference in UK democracy is a live threat: laws to prevent such interference play an integral role in defending our democracy. There have long been calls to bring these laws into the twenty-first century – and this overhaul is now critical.
To see why our electoral guard-rails aren’t clear or strong enough, just look at the cloud of uncertainty that arose from the suggestion that Elon Musk might bankroll Reform UK to the tune of $100 million. It dominated the headlines and rightly unleashed questions around whether that kind of donation would – or should – be possible. Do our laws allow a foreign billionaire to invest in our politics?
As it stands, a non-citizen like Musk can’t legally donate to any British political party, in a personal capacity. Neither can a foreign company.
In practice though, it’s not certain that our electoral law is robust enough to prevent an impermissible donor like Musk – or any other wealthy overseas individual – from funnelling a donation to a UK political party via a UK company. For example, what if Musk were to donate through the UK arm of his multinational company Tesla, or X?
This kind of workaround could be prohibited under current law – if it could be proven that the company was in effect acting on the overseas donor’s behalf. But the detail of what is allowed, and appetite for bringing such a case against any foreign donor, is both untested and uncertain.
We’ve been given a wake-up call. Whether it’s Musk or any other foreign billionaire – perhaps someone acting on behalf of a foreign power like Russia or China – potential routes to buying influence over UK democracy must be closed off. We can and must go further.
For example, there have long been calls to limit how much UK companies can donate to political parties – capped at e.g. their UK profits for the past two years, to prevent them funnelling overseas money into our politics. We could even go further, and adopt an assumption that a UK company whose ultimate owner is an overseas impermissible donor should be seen as acting on that owner’s behalf – and so prevented from donating – as the default.
If we’re starting this conversation, perhaps it’s not just foreign money that we should be concerned about. Iindividual UK donors give significant amounts to our political parties, and there have been some suggestions that we should restrict the amount that any individual donor can give.
But meddling though money is just part of the picture. Through weighing in on the huge social media platform he owns, and amplifying posts to millions of users, someone like Musk can have a very significant voice in UK political discourse and influence voters without donating a penny. He isn’t alone, of course. Mark Zuckerberg’s announcement that Meta will cease fact-checking and enable more political content will further enable foreign interference. And TikTok is its own beast – with the US leading the way in Western democracies in banning the platform.
What does our legal framework say about this kind of non-monetary interference? Not a lot – what we have is disjointed, piecemeal, and arguably insufficient.
Upcoming changes will require transparency: the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS), due to be introduced this year, will at a minimum require the registration of any arrangement for political advocacy in the UK which is directed by a foreign power. When Musk takes up his new role as a US government official, his use of X to push advocacy material to UK audiences could come within the scope of disclosure requirements under FIRS, if and when they are implemented – although not his personal posts. The regime remains untested, and one question looms – is transparency enough?
What else do we have? Ofcom has prime position under new provisions in the Online Safety Act, which has brought in a duty to protect ‘content of democratic importance’, and created a new offence of sending ‘false communications’. Again, these remain untested. Ahead of elections, police are responsible for enforcement of outdated electoral laws which prohibit false statements about candidates’ personal conduct or characters during election – but in practice these likely wouldn’t stand up to the test posed by AI deepfakes.
There may be a limit to what stronger regulation can do. But that’s no reason for inaction. From the role of money in our politics, to how digital platforms are used for foreign influence, revised rules enforced by a joined up and robust approach from UK regulators can make a difference. Laws to safeguard UK democracy can and must be updated for the landscape we’re in. Labour’s manifesto promised to strengthen our democracy. Let’s get on with it.
Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.
Source: Politics
