In most situations, when a British politician is after funds from a foreign oligarch, the process tends to be quite low-key. Both parties usually worry about the optics of their relationship, even if everything stays within UK electoral law.
Nigel Farage, however, doesn’t seem to mind attracting attention. The leader of the Reform Party openly spoke about his recent encounter with Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest individual, at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. Joining them was Nick Candy, a former donor to the Conservatives and the current treasurer for the Reform Party. Far from keeping it under wraps, the British attendees seemed keen on letting everyone know not only that this meeting happened, but that financial matters were on the table.
Now, Elon Musk has shot down rumors about potentially pouring millions into the Reform Party. Yet, he’s shown an interest in stirring up British political waters. He’s leveraged his X platform to criticize Sir Keir Starmer, promote extreme rightwing ideas, and share incendiary comments, such as predicting civil unrest following this summer’s riots.
Imagine someone of similar clout from any country other than the US meddling so openly in UK politics without creating an uproar. If Farage weren’t on the receiving end, or if these actions didn’t align with his views, he’d likely be the first to voice outrage, much as he did when Barack Obama urged Brits to stay in the EU during the 2016 referendum.
There’s a big difference between expressing an opinion that’s seen as meddling in foreign affairs and actually providing funds that could sway an election. While there are rules against foreign contributions, they’re not overly difficult to navigate. For example, the UK branch of Musk’s business operations could legally funnel money into the Reform Party’s election campaign with no cap on the donation amount. This means a billionaire, not living or voting in the UK, could heavily influence democratic outcomes with significant financial contributions.
The Labour Party’s manifesto promises to “protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties,” but how this will play out remains uncertain. At present, no legislation is being readied to fulfill this promise. The discourse on foreign interference in UK democracy has mainly revolved around covert actions by hostile nations. The spread of Russian disinformation online is increasingly seen as a threat. Additionally, the controversy involving Prince Andrew and a Chinese businessman alleged to be a spy has highlighted China’s attempts to infiltrate UK structures and sway policy.
It doesn’t quite add up to treat open actions from the US—a fellow democracy and staunch ally—on par with covert schemes from authoritarian states. Still, that doesn’t mean American financial influence in British politics is not concerning. Given the bond and shared language between the UK and US, some exchange in political strategies is inevitable. Nonetheless, cultural similarities shouldn’t imply shared governance. Accepting American billionaires’ intervention in British political arenas should never become part of the transatlantic norm.
