5 ms·

> Russian oligarchs have donated millions of pounds to the Conservative Party I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain for foreigners to

> Russian oligarchs have donated millions of pounds to the Conservative Party I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain for foreigners to finance political parties?

outside1234 5y ago
This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there. This is why the "Citizens United" decision was so horrible and should be reversed.
- EGreg 5y ago
  Money in politics is a symptom of a larger problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc Capitalism and Free Speech
- nickff 5y ago
  The Citizens United decision doesn't allow corporations to donate unlimited or anonymized funds to campaigns. Citizens United wanted to release and promote an independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was that this was protected free speech.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    > Citizens United wanted to release and promote an independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was that this was protected free speech. This is what Citizens United wanted, but it's not the outcome of the Supreme Court case. The outcome of the case was the gutting of BCRA 2002[1], which previously prevented unlimited corporate and union spending in political campaigns. The rest (anonymized funding, "super" PACs) are logical consequences of the overturning of that law and American corporate structure. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
    - nickff 5y ago
      To be clear, I was responding to a comment which specifically said: >" This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there." These statements were factually incorrect. You are making different claims.
      - fugalfervor 5y ago
        So they form a corporation and donate to several Super PACs that are technically (though not functionally) independent from the campaigns they wish to support, and that will do with the money what the campaign would have done (buy millions of dollars' worth of ads on TV and social media). Technically you are right, they can't donate directly to campaigns by forming a corporation here, but they can get close enough that if you squint you can't tell the difference.
  - jfoutz 5y ago
    as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with creating 1,000,000 corporations and having each donate $1,000 for each election. But it's easier to create a super pac, accept unlimited money, and then pay out in whatever way is effective.
  - hypersoar 5y ago
    Citizens United wanted to pay for commercials for their movie on cable within 30 days of the last primary election. They were free to distribute their movie as far and as wide as they desired.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there. Corporations can't donate money to campaigns, either. (They can spend money on them, or donate funds to non-campaign groups that spend money independently of campaigns, but not donate to politicians.)
  - fugalfervor 5y ago
    And we all know that these honorable non-campaign groups truly operate "independently of [the] campaigns".
usrusr 5y ago
Assuming they'd care (unlikely): how hard could it be to introduce a middleman?
GekkePrutser 5y ago
I think it's just as questionable a practice for both nationals and foreigners to be honest. When it involves large amounts of course. Not talking about the 50-odd bucks membership most parties charge yearly. But donating millions like it's commonplace in the US I find pretty questionable. And it leads to corruption like the "pay to play" lists.
- hattmall 5y ago
  "Questionable" is being extremely lenient, it is corruption on the face, nothing less. $100,000 speaking fees, millions in donations to foundations are the same thing, it's not even hidden. It's just double speak.
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Naturalised citizens in the USA can donate too, can't they? The point is these guys have visas, residency etc., they aren't a criminal class, in the UK. It's funny how until the Ukraine crisis, every time I mentioned how serious a problem this was, people told me I was exaggerating. Even in the first week of the war, that happened here on HN. The London Laundromat is a significant corrosive influence.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > they aren't a criminal class, in the UK. Well, they _are_ a criminal class here. It's just they've been getting away with it for some time because they're under the protection of another criminal class - our leaders. With any luck the ramifications of this Russia/Ukraine business will cause the unravelling of much more than that little squirt Putin.
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    I see your point (and upvoted it). It depends how you see it, I suppose. What I mean is this: Basically all of these oligarchs come here to do legitimate business, just with unexplained wealth. And that's the loophole; unexplained wealth. You have to spend it in a way that brings you attention, before anyone even asks. So here they are not acting criminally; their wealth is only criminal if someone can prove it was illegally obtained in Russia, and that is quite a high bar, considering the source of the wealth and the system in which it was created. It's not just for Russian oligarchs, either; unexplained wealth is at least as big a problem from the middle east. And as you likely know, campaigners even tried to get Donald Trump to explain how he bought a golf course with cash using an unexplained wealth order. I do wonder if that will get revisited, since it was almost certainly cash of dubious, and quite likely Russian, origin.
    - nonrandomstring 5y ago
      Appreciated, thank you. As I see it, It's not "unexplained wealth" per se that's at issue. I find that concept (the assumption that having money you can't account for is _alone_ automatic grounds for suspicion) quite despotic and authoritarian. In the US it's become a means by which police can just "legally" confiscate someone's savings. That can only go to dark places for ordinary people who have some luck with their speculations. It's not the money, it's what they do with it and the sort of behaviour they "buy". There's a litany of serious crime (SOCA) and actions by NCA or local police that mysteriously dead-end. Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs". For years our own leaders have allowed this to fester, turned a blind eye, or been involved more closely - a connection between Peter Mandelson and Oleg Deripaska is just one of the few exposed. Earlier economic crime bills have stalled, and existing "investigatory powers" legislation has rarely, if ever, been used successfully against these people. This has led to new intelligence groups, think-tanks and university research departments set up around countering "Lawfare". Corruption is global, as you say. But let's be honest here; just because someone is not a _technically_ convicted criminal it doesn't mean they not de-facto criminals to a standard most ordinary people would accept. The problem is getting anything through a courts system so underfunded, amidst a society so corrupted by money. What I said is that I hope this Russo-Ukraine war has side effects (far beyond ousting Putin) that blow-back on our own corrupt officials.
stevenwoo 5y ago
I thought part of the problem is the jurisdiction for the investigating lies with parts of the government and Parliament that are under control of the party in power - there are investigations of Russian influence that has been withheld from the public for more than four years https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51417880 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51417880

> Russian oligarchs have donated millions of pounds to the Conservative Party I don't understand how this is possible. Is it legal in Britain for foreigners to finance political parties?

outside1234 5y ago

This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there. This is why the "Citizens United" decision was so horrible and should be reversed.

EGreg 5y ago
Money in politics is a symptom of a larger problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv5mI6ClPGc Capitalism and Free Speech
nickff 5y ago
The Citizens United decision doesn't allow corporations to donate unlimited or anonymized funds to campaigns. Citizens United wanted to release and promote an independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was that this was protected free speech.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > Citizens United wanted to release and promote an independent, short, anti-Hillary Clinton documentary film, and the decision was that this was protected free speech. This is what Citizens United wanted, but it's not the outcome of the Supreme Court case. The outcome of the case was the gutting of BCRA 2002[1], which previously prevented unlimited corporate and union spending in political campaigns. The rest (anonymized funding, "super" PACs) are logical consequences of the overturning of that law and American corporate structure. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
  - nickff 5y ago
    To be clear, I was responding to a comment which specifically said: >" This would be legal in the United States as well. They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there." These statements were factually incorrect. You are making different claims.
    - fugalfervor 5y ago
      So they form a corporation and donate to several Super PACs that are technically (though not functionally) independent from the campaigns they wish to support, and that will do with the money what the campaign would have done (buy millions of dollars' worth of ads on TV and social media). Technically you are right, they can't donate directly to campaigns by forming a corporation here, but they can get close enough that if you squint you can't tell the difference.
- jfoutz 5y ago
  as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with creating 1,000,000 corporations and having each donate $1,000 for each election. But it's easier to create a super pac, accept unlimited money, and then pay out in whatever way is effective.
- hypersoar 5y ago
  Citizens United wanted to pay for commercials for their movie on cable within 30 days of the last primary election. They were free to distribute their movie as far and as wide as they desired.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> They would just first form a corporation and then donate it from there. Corporations can't donate money to campaigns, either. (They can spend money on them, or donate funds to non-campaign groups that spend money independently of campaigns, but not donate to politicians.)
- fugalfervor 5y ago
  And we all know that these honorable non-campaign groups truly operate "independently of [the] campaigns".

usrusr 5y ago

Assuming they'd care (unlikely): how hard could it be to introduce a middleman?

GekkePrutser 5y ago

I think it's just as questionable a practice for both nationals and foreigners to be honest. When it involves large amounts of course. Not talking about the 50-odd bucks membership most parties charge yearly. But donating millions like it's commonplace in the US I find pretty questionable. And it leads to corruption like the "pay to play" lists.

hattmall 5y ago
"Questionable" is being extremely lenient, it is corruption on the face, nothing less. $100,000 speaking fees, millions in donations to foundations are the same thing, it's not even hidden. It's just double speak.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

Naturalised citizens in the USA can donate too, can't they? The point is these guys have visas, residency etc., they aren't a criminal class, in the UK. It's funny how until the Ukraine crisis, every time I mentioned how serious a problem this was, people told me I was exaggerating. Even in the first week of the war, that happened here on HN. The London Laundromat is a significant corrosive influence.

nonrandomstring 5y ago
> they aren't a criminal class, in the UK. Well, they _are_ a criminal class here. It's just they've been getting away with it for some time because they're under the protection of another criminal class - our leaders. With any luck the ramifications of this Russia/Ukraine business will cause the unravelling of much more than that little squirt Putin.
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  I see your point (and upvoted it). It depends how you see it, I suppose. What I mean is this: Basically all of these oligarchs come here to do legitimate business, just with unexplained wealth. And that's the loophole; unexplained wealth. You have to spend it in a way that brings you attention, before anyone even asks. So here they are not acting criminally; their wealth is only criminal if someone can prove it was illegally obtained in Russia, and that is quite a high bar, considering the source of the wealth and the system in which it was created. It's not just for Russian oligarchs, either; unexplained wealth is at least as big a problem from the middle east. And as you likely know, campaigners even tried to get Donald Trump to explain how he bought a golf course with cash using an unexplained wealth order. I do wonder if that will get revisited, since it was almost certainly cash of dubious, and quite likely Russian, origin.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    Appreciated, thank you. As I see it, It's not "unexplained wealth" per se that's at issue. I find that concept (the assumption that having money you can't account for is _alone_ automatic grounds for suspicion) quite despotic and authoritarian. In the US it's become a means by which police can just "legally" confiscate someone's savings. That can only go to dark places for ordinary people who have some luck with their speculations. It's not the money, it's what they do with it and the sort of behaviour they "buy". There's a litany of serious crime (SOCA) and actions by NCA or local police that mysteriously dead-end. Intimidation of judges, police and journalists, bribery, legal threats designed to silence investigations (SLAPP) has multiplied within Britain thanks to "oligarchs". For years our own leaders have allowed this to fester, turned a blind eye, or been involved more closely - a connection between Peter Mandelson and Oleg Deripaska is just one of the few exposed. Earlier economic crime bills have stalled, and existing "investigatory powers" legislation has rarely, if ever, been used successfully against these people. This has led to new intelligence groups, think-tanks and university research departments set up around countering "Lawfare". Corruption is global, as you say. But let's be honest here; just because someone is not a _technically_ convicted criminal it doesn't mean they not de-facto criminals to a standard most ordinary people would accept. The problem is getting anything through a courts system so underfunded, amidst a society so corrupted by money. What I said is that I hope this Russo-Ukraine war has side effects (far beyond ousting Putin) that blow-back on our own corrupt officials.

stevenwoo 5y ago

I thought part of the problem is the jurisdiction for the investigating lies with parts of the government and Parliament that are under control of the party in power - there are investigations of Russian influence that has been withheld from the public for more than four years https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51417880 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51417880