It’s an election year – and that means political donations have ramped up.
And this has been compounded by the alleged comments of Frank Hester, who is reported to have said Labour MP Diane Abbott made him “want to hate all black women”, after giving £10m to the Conservatives.
But what exactly are the rules on donations? Do they change for elections? Who gets the most money? Why do people donate? And can parties give funds back?
Here we explain:
What are the rules on donations?
Politics and money is a rabbit hole that Lewis Carroll would be jealous of, and the UK’s system is no different.
One of the most important things to note is that the figures are on a much smaller scale to those in the US – in the tens of millions rather than billions.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
One key distinction is that donations to MPs are different to political party donations.
Image: Frank Hester has given millions to the Conservatives. Pic: PA
MPs have to declare all their interests on a public register, which can be easily searched using the Sky News Westminster Accounts tool.
This is how we know that Frank Hester’s The Phoenix Partnership donated a £15,900 helicopter flight to Rishi Sunak late last year.
His company gave £5m, and he gave £5m personally to the Conservative Party itself.
The rules for these donations require all contributions over £11,180 to be declared. This was recently increased from a threshold of £7,500.
Money donated to political parties in this fashion goes into their accounts but, according to Professor Justin Fisher, an expert in political finance at Brunel University, it does not need to be “ring-fenced”.
This is why there is no way to see what the money donated by Mr Hester and his company was spent on.
The body responsible for regulating and setting standards for donations and party finances is the Electoral Commission.
The aforementioned increase in the floor for the declaration of donations was done as part of measures to update financial restrictions that had laid untouched for two decades.
The spending limit for parties during elections also increased. For a party contesting all 650 UK seats it went from around £18m to just over £35m.
However, as no party contests every seat, the effective limit is just over £34m.
According to the Electoral Commission, this applies to spending on certain activities in the 365 days before the election.
Confusingly, it is impossible to know the start date of this period, as the government can call an election whenever it wants, so in November 2023 the Electoral Commission encouraged parties to “behave as if you are in a regulated period from now onwards”.
Other changes included how often parties have to report their donations.
In normal times, figures are published quarterly. After an election is called and parliament is dissolved, publication takes place every week.
There are also restrictions on how much money a prospective MP can spend in an election period.
Each constituency has a limit based on the number of people who live there.
And those hoping to get elected have to declare all their spending, as well as any donation the candidate received over £50.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59
Why don’t we know when the UK election is?
Who gives the most money – and why?
The biggest donors to political parties can be easily identified through the Sky News Westminster Accounts interface.
It is dominated by individuals, unions, and just a few companies.
At the top of the list sits Lord David Sainsbury, the supermarket heir, who has given more than £13m in donations since the last election – including £5.1m to Labour and £8m to the Liberal Democrats.
He is not to be confused with his cousin, the late Lord John Sainsbury, who gave £10.2m to the Conservatives in the same period.
Next up is the union Unite, which has given £10.7m to Labour, and hundreds of thousands of pounds to Labour MPs.
The GMB union and Unison have both given around £6m to Labour since 2019.
Businessman Graham Edwards gave £5.2m to the Conservatives in this period.
Next on the list is Mr Hester’s The Phoenix Partnership, which has given £5.2m, including the helicopter flight to Mr Sunak.
Mr Hester also donated £5m in a personal capacity to the Conservatives.
Prof Fisher explained that it used to be more common for companies to donate, instead of individuals – but it is harder to justify this now in an era when spending plans have to get past powerful boards.
Instead, companies can benefit from different, less expensive (on a balance sheet) endeavours, like lobbying or hosting events.
Donors tend to hand over cash or gifts because they want to see a party win which will improve their position, or because of a prior affiliation. Or an individual could just be politically aligned with the party in question.
Can parties return money?
Once again, the short answer is yes.
There have been calls for the Conservatives to return the money given to them by Mr Hester or his company.
Political parties can spend their money how they choose – and this could include giving it back or donating it to charity.
It is not the first time there have been calls for money to be returned.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
The Liberal Democrats faced calls to return money donated to them by Michael Brown, who lived in Majorca but gave money through a company based in the UK – something the rules do not allow.
The Electoral Commission investigated but did not take further action. Mr Brown was later convicted of fraud.
The Labour Party faced calls in 2002 to return a donation from publisher Richard Desmond because his publication “titles are demeaning and degrading to women”.
One time when money did get returned was when Labour accepted a £1m donation from Formula 1 chief Bernie Ecclestone shortly before they came to power in 1997.
At the time, the donation was not made public as there was no requirement to do so. Labour did, however, have a policy at the time of declaring donations.
After coming to power, Labour announced it would ban all sports sponsorships from tobacco companies.
But, following talks with Mr Ecclestone, the government proposed exempting Formula 1 from the ban.
The donation then became public, and a political scandal erupted, so the party committed to give the money back.
Image: Labour handed back money given to them by Formula 1 chief Bernie Ecclestone. Pic: Reuters
In March 1998, Mr Ecclestone cashed a cheque which Labour had written to him for the £1m.
This shows money can be returned, if there is a will to do so.
South Korea is preparing to impose bank-level, no-fault liability rules on crypto exchanges, holding exchanges to the same standards as traditional financial institutions amid the recent breach at Upbit.
The Financial Services Commission (FSC) is reviewing new provisions that would require exchanges to compensate customers for losses stemming from hacks or system failures, even when the platform is not at fault, The Korea Times reported on Sunday, citing officials and local market analysts.
The no-fault compensation model is currently applied only to banks and electronic payment firms under Korea’s Electronic Financial Transactions Act.
The regulatory push follows a Nov. 27 incident involving Upbit, operated by Dunamu, in which more than 104 billion Solana-based tokens, worth approximately 44.5 billion won ($30.1 million), were transferred to external wallets in under an hour.
Regulators are also reacting to a pattern of recurring outages. Data submitted to lawmakers by the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) shows the country’s five major exchanges, Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit and Gopax, reported 20 system failures since 2023, affecting over 900 users and causing more than 5 billion won in combined losses. Upbit alone recorded six failures impacting 600 customers.
The upcoming legislative revision is expected to mandate stricter IT security requirements, higher operational standards and tougher penalties. Lawmakers are weighing a rule that would allow fines of up to 3% of annual revenue for hacking incidents, the same threshold used for banks. Currently, crypto exchanges face a maximum fine of $3.4 million.
The Upbit breach has also drawn political scrutiny over delayed reporting. Although the hack was detected shortly after 5 am, the exchange did not notify the FSS until nearly 11 am. Some lawmakers have alleged the delay was intentional, occurring minutes after Dunamu finalized a merger with Naver Financial.
As Cointelegraph reported, South Korean lawmakers are also pressuring financial regulators to deliver a draft stablecoin bill by Dec. 10, warning they will push ahead without the government if the deadline is missed.
The ruling party’s ultimatum follows slow progress and repeated delays, with officials hoping to bring the bill to debate during the National Assembly’s extraordinary session in January 2026.
Millionaire Tory donor Malcolm Offord has defected to Reform UK, saying he would be campaigning “tirelessly” to “remove this rotten SNP government”.
Nigel Farage announced the former Conservative life peer’s defection during a rally in the Scottish town of Falkirk, where regular anti-immigration protests have taken place outside the Cladhan Hotel – which is being used to house asylum seekers.
Mr Farage, Reform UK’s leader, said he was “delighted” to welcome Greenock-born Lord Offord to Reform, describing his defection as “a brave and historic act”.
He added: “He will take Reform UK Scotland to a new level.”
During a speech, Lord Offord, who previously donated nearly £150,000 to the Tories, said he would be quitting the Conservative Party and giving up his place in the House of Lords as he prepares to campaign for a seat in Holyrood in May.
The 61-year-old said he wanted to restore Scotland to a “prosperous, happy, healthy country”.
“Scotland needs Reform and Reform is coming to Scotland,” he told the rally.
“Today I can announce that I am resigning from the Conservative Party. Today I am joining Reform UK and today I announce my intention to stand for Reform in the Holyrood election in May next year.
“And that means that from today, for the next five months, day and night, I shall be campaigning with all of you tirelessly for two objectives.
“The first objective is to remove this rotten SNP government after 18 years, and the second is to present a positive vision for Scotland inside the UK, to restore Scotland to being a prosperous, proud, healthy and happy country.”
The latest defection comes as Mr Farage finds himself at the centre of allegations of racism dating back to his time in school.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:09
Claims made against Nigel Farage
Sky News reported on Saturday that a former schoolfriend of Mr Farage claimed he sang antisemitic songs to Jewish schoolmates – and had a “big issue with anyone called Patel”.
Jean-Pierre Lihou, 61, was initially friends with the Reform UK leader when he arrived at Dulwich College in the 1970s, at the time when Mr Farage is accused of saying antisemitic and other racist remarks by more than a dozen pupils.
Mr Farage has said he “never directly racially abused anybody” at Dulwich and said there is a “strong political element” to the allegations coming out 49 years later.
Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice has called the ex-classmates “liars”.
A Reform UK spokesman accused Sky News of “scraping the barrel” and being “desperate to stop us winning the next election”.
The European Commission’s proposal to expand the powers of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) is raising concerns about the centralization of the bloc’s licensing regime, despite signaling deeper institutional ambitions for its capital markets structure.
On Thursday, the Commission published a package proposing to “direct supervisory competences” for key pieces of market infrastructure, including crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), trading venues and central counterparties to ESMA, Cointelegraph reported.
Concerningly, the ESMA’s jurisdiction would extend to both the supervision and licensing of all European crypto and financial technology (fintech) firms, potentially leading to slower licensing regimes and hindering startup development, according to Faustine Fleuret, head of public affairs at decentralized lending protocol Morpho.
“I am even more concerned that the proposal makes ESMA responsible for both the authorisation and the supervision of CASPs, not only the supervision,” she told Cointelegraph.
The proposal still requires approval from the European Parliament and the Council, which are currently under negotiation.
If adopted, ESMA’s role in overseeing EU capital markets would more closely resemble the centralized framework of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, a concept first proposed by European Central Bank (ECB) President Christine Lagarde in 2023.
EU plan to centralize licensing under ESMA creates crypto and fintech slowdown concerns
The proposal to “centralize” this oversight under a single regulatory body seeks to address the differences in national supervisory practices and uneven licensing regimes, but risks slowing down overall crypto industry development, Elisenda Fabrega, general counsel at Brickken asset tokenization platform, told Cointelegraph.
“Without adequate resources, this mandate may become unmanageable, leading to delays or overly cautious assessments that could disproportionately affect smaller or innovative firms.”
“Ultimately, the effectiveness of this reform will depend less on its legal form and more on its institutional execution,” including ESMA’s operational capacity, independence and cooperation “channels” with member states, she said.
Global stock market value by country. Source: Visual Capitalist
The broader package aims to boost wealth creation for EU citizens by making the bloc’s capital markets more competitive with those of the US.
The US stock market is worth approximately $62 trillion, or 48% of the global equity market, while the EU stock market’s cumulative value sits around $11 trillion, representing 9% of the global share, according to data from Visual Capitalist.