The wealthy are buying political influence. As a millionaire, I'm asking you to stop us

Every successful business leader or entrepreneur will tell you the same thing: a healthy, stable democracy is essential for good business. My own success reflects the economic and social opportunities of a country where enterprise thrives alongside strong public institutions.

When those systems begin to fracture, the consequences are not abstract. In the United States, escalating campaign spending and politicians’ growing dependency on wealthy backers have increasingly crowded out deliberation and compromise. A poll conducted by Survation of over 3,900 millionaires across the G20, commissioned by Patriotic Millionaires, found that six in ten believe Donald Trump’s presidency had a negative impact on economic stability and affordability for everyday people. The same poll shows that 62 per cent see extreme wealth as a threat to democracy, more than four in five believe the very wealthy can access politicians through their wealth, and 77 per cent think they actively buy political influence.

The UK may not spend as much on financing politics as the US, but the risks are similar. Last year saw the single largest donation from a private individual when Reform received a £9 million donation via cryptocurrency. And influence is not always exercised through formal donations. Often it comes through private meetings, introductions, and proximity to power - the quieter privileges that wealth makes routine and the public rarely sees. If “one person, one vote” is to mean anything, we can no longer ignore how concentrated wealth can distort political influence.

Recent controversies have underscored this further. The Mandelson episode, for example, highlighted how money, networks, and personal connections shape political outcomes behind closed doors. It is not simply about who gains access, but how the system allows well-resourced actors to exert disproportionate influence over policy decisions.

As millionaires ourselves, many of us can see how wealth and political power can ossify into a self-sustaining cycle - where wealth buys influence, and influence in turn protects or expands that wealth.

The Elections Bill, published last week, presents a rare opportunity to begin addressing these imbalances. While civil society organisations have welcomed its measures to curb foreign interference and tighten checks on company donations, the scope of these measures is limited. It leaves untouched the core levers of domestic influence: there is no cap on political donations, cryptocurrency contributions remain lightly regulated, and the Electoral Commission’s powers are not meaningfully strengthened.

Leading organisations have urged the government not to let this opportunity slip, recommending, among other measures, the introduction of an annual cap on political donations. Our polling found overwhelming support among the wealthy themselves: 82 per cent of millionaires agree with the principle of introducing donation caps. What is striking is how widely this view is shared among those who benefit most from the status quo. That sentiment was visible recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where hundreds of millionaires and billionaires signed an open letter calling on global leaders to tax the super-rich and reclaim democratic control. As the letter puts it: when even millionaires recognise that extreme wealth has cost everyone else everything else, democracy itself is at risk.

Some will dismiss calls for donation caps as unnecessary or radical. In my view, they are neither. They represent the first small step to a principled, conservative approach to risk management, ensuring that wealth strengthens society rather than distorts it. Just as we protect markets from monopolies, we must scrutinise emerging monopolies of political influence. Without policies like this, we face more stories of political capture, more individuals exchanging information for money and influence, and less trust in our elected leaders, our democracy, and the belief that the future can be fairer for all of us.

The Government is right to recognise that Britain’s democracy faces risks. But safeguarding it requires more than tightening the rules on foreign actors. It demands confronting the uncomfortable reality that our domestic political finance system remains unusually permissive by international standards.

____________________

Phil White is a member of Patriotic Millionaires UK and a former business consultant and engineer.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk