This article examines how political donations can still be made through a qualifying UK company when an individual donor is restricted by the proposed £100,000 overseas-donor cap. It explains, in simple terms, how company donations are assessed under separate rules based on company profits, and how this could allow substantially larger amounts to be donated legally through a company rather than directly by the individual.
Author’s Disclaimer:
I would like to make clear in advance that I am not a qualified lawyer, legal expert, business expert, accountant, or have any qualifications or expertise in these areas.
I am an independent amateur researcher and hobbyist with a general interest in exploring how societies, institutions, laws, politics and other global systems operate beneath their surface explanations.
The material published reflects analysis based on research performed using publicly available AI such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini. Information is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal or other professional advice, and it does not allege or conclude that any individual or organisation has committed a criminal offence or other wrongdoing, nor is there any intention to do so.
Any discussion of possible offences, liabilities, statutory breaches or institutional failures is hypothetical, conditional and analytical, and should not be treated as an assertion of proven fact. Readers should verify sources independently and obtain appropriate professional advice where required.
Reader Due Diligence & Disclaimer
This analysis is produced for public commentary, discussion and debate. It does not constitute clinical, legal, business, financial or other professional advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for the reader’s own due diligence and independent judgement. Reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of citations and bibliography entries, but errors may remain.
Where a reference appears inaccurate or incomplete, readers are encouraged to use the available author, title, publication and subject details to locate the underlying source and assess its content directly.
The following analysis was generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence and is presented for discussion and research purposes. Although reasonable effort has been made to identify and cite relevant primary sources, AI-generated material can contain errors, omissions, outdated information or misinterpretations.
Readers should therefore carry out their own due diligence, check the cited sources directly, and independently verify any factual, statistical, legal, financial or policy claims before relying upon the analysis or repeating its conclusions.
The author does not present this AI-generated analysis as a substitute for independent professional advice or primary-source verification.
The £72 Million Question
The recent £72 million donated to Reform UK — £36 million each from cryptocurrency billionaires Christopher Harborne and Ben Delo — has focused attention on Britain’s political-funding rules and the Representation of the People Bill currently passing through Parliament (McKelvie, 2026; UK Parliament, 2026).
Much of the debate concerns the proposed £100,000 annual limit on certain overseas individual donors. However, companies would be treated differently. The Government has proposed replacing the existing company test with one based on post-tax profits, measured over the previous five years (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government [MHCLG], 2026).
This creates an important question: if an individual may be restricted to £100,000, how much could a qualifying UK company associated with that individual legally donate?
How the Five-Year Rule Works
Under the current drafting, a company’s positive profits over the previous five years are added together. Loss-making years are excluded from the calculation (Electoral Commission, 2026; UK Parliament, 2026).
Imagine a company made a £10 million profit in each of five years. Its positive profits would total £50 million. Subject to the other requirements of the Bill, that could potentially give the company a political-donation limit of £50 million.
The unusual part is what happens afterwards. If that company donated £50 million, those historical profits are not permanently removed from the calculation. The following year the five-year window simply moves forward. If Years 2–5 still contain £40 million of historical profits and the company makes no profit in Year 6, the new calculation could still produce a £40 million donation limit.
The Electoral Commission has specifically warned about this. It gives the example of a company making £5 million profit in 2022 and then breaking even or making losses afterwards. Under the Bill’s current wording, the Commission says the company could potentially donate £5 million in 2023, another £5 million in 2024, another £5 million in 2025 and another £5 million in 2026 (Electoral Commission, 2026).
In other words, the same historical profit can continue to determine the company’s donation limit while it remains within the five-year window.
The Electoral Commission has also criticised the treatment of losses. A company could make a large profit in one year but greater losses during the remaining four years and still retain political-donation capacity based on the profitable year because only years in which the company made a positive profit are included in the calculation (Electoral Commission, 2026).
Applying This to the Reform UK Donations
Using one of Reform UK’s £36 million donations purely as an example, the proposed company-donation rules can be understood as a sequence:
Assume the £36 million personal donation has to be returned. The billionaire is treated as an individual donor and, if caught by the proposed overseas-contributor rules, could be restricted to £100,000 personally (MHCLG, 2026).
A genuine UK company owned by the billionaire is considered separately. The £100,000 individual limit does not automatically become the limit for a qualifying UK company. The company has its own political-donation calculation based upon its profits (Electoral Commission, 2026).
Calculate the company’s five-year profit allowance. Suppose the company has £9 million of qualifying positive post-tax profits within the previous five years. Under the Bill’s current wording, that could potentially give the company up to £9 million of company-donation capacity.
The company must actually have enough cash to make the donation. Historical profits establish the potential legal donation limit, but the company still needs £9 million of available cash in its bank account or other liquid resources.
The company makes a £9 million political donation. Assuming all the company-donor, ownership, control and donor-checking requirements are satisfied, the company — rather than the billionaire personally — is recorded as the donor.
The £9 million donation reduces the company’s available cash. The company may therefore need to replace some or all of that cash so that it remains properly financed for wages, investment, suppliers, debt repayments and normal business operations.
The company’s cash can be replenished from legitimate sources. This might come from new trading income, existing investments, bank borrowing, new equity or shareholder loans. A billionaire owner can ordinarily provide additional capital or lend money to their own company as part of normal company financing.
That new cash is not automatically new profit. If the owner puts £9 million into the company as capital or a shareholder loan, the company may again have £9 million more cash available, but it has not made another £9 million of accounting profit. Its future political-donation capacity still depends upon the statutory profit calculation.
The historical £9 million profit may nevertheless still count next year. This is the specific weakness identified by the Electoral Commission. Under the Bill’s current wording, the same historical profit can remain within the rolling five-year calculation and potentially support another substantial donation in a later calendar year (Electoral Commission, 2026).
The company again needs enough cash. If another £9 million donation were permitted the following year, the company would again need sufficient liquidity to make it. That money could come from continuing business activity, retained cash, borrowing or legitimate additional financing.
Over several years the cumulative donations could become much larger than the original profit. Four permitted £9 million company donations would total £36 million. The Electoral Commission gives a similar example of a company making £5 million profit once but potentially being able to make £5 million donations in several following years while that historical profit remains within the five-year window (Electoral Commission, 2026).
Why This Also Matters to Labour
Company donations are not unique to Reform UK.
Labour has received substantial donations through UK companies, including the £4 million donated by Quadrature Capital Limited in 2024 and millions more over time from companies associated with Dale Vince’s Ecotricity businesses (ITV News, 2024; Quadrature Capital Limited, n.d.).
This matters because any additional anti-avoidance rules introduced to prevent companies from repeatedly using historical profits, or to identify the ultimate source of company funding, would need to operate across the political system.
If Parliament decides that a company’s old profits should be permanently reduced once they have supported a political donation, that principle should apply whether the company supports Reform UK, Labour, the Conservatives or another party.
Likewise, if Parliament decides that companies and their controlling shareholders should have their political contributions aggregated in some circumstances, that rule should operate neutrally.
Why the Electoral Commission Is Concerned
The basic principle behind the company’s profit test is understandable. A genuine British company making substantial profits may legitimately wish to support a political party.
The problem identified by the Electoral Commission concerns how those profits are calculated.
The Commission says the current drafting has several weaknesses. Profits are totalled over five years rather than averaged; loss-making years are ignored; and historical profits can continue to support the calculation of permitted donations in subsequent years while they remain within the five-year period (Electoral Commission, 2026).
The Rycroft Review had recommended using average post-tax profits over a shorter period, partly to prevent an exceptional profit in one year from supporting disproportionately large political donations years later (Rycroft, 2026).
The Government accepted the principle of replacing revenue with profit but opted for a five-year calculation (MHCLG, 2026).
The Electoral Commission is therefore warning that the current wording could allow companies to make political donations substantially exceeding what many people might intuitively understand by the phrase “donating from profits”.
Conclusion
The proposed £100,000 overseas-donor cap sounds straightforward until company donations are considered.
An individual may potentially be restricted to £100,000, while a qualifying UK company could have donation capacity running into millions because its limit is calculated from several years of positive profits.
More significantly, the Electoral Commission says the current drafting can allow the same historical profit to continue supporting donation capacity in successive years.
This does not demonstrate that Reform UK, its donors, Labour or any other political party intends to exploit the rules.
It does demonstrate that the proposed £100,000 overseas-donor limit cannot sensibly be considered in isolation.
Political money can enter the system through individuals, companies, trade unions and other permissible organisations, all of which are governed by different rules. If Parliament strengthens the company rules to close weaknesses identified by the Electoral Commission, those rules should apply equally to companies supporting Reform UK, Labour, the Conservatives or any other party.
That may ultimately be the most important test of the legislation: not which party loses money, but whether equivalent political funding is treated equivalently regardless of which party receives it.
References
Electoral Commission. (2026, September 1). Representation of the People Bill: Report Stage briefing on amendments on donations by companies. Electoral Commission.
Electoral Commission briefingITV News. (2024, June 6). Conservative Party accepted funds from Diane Abbott race row donor Frank Hester. ITV News.
ITV News articleMcKelvie, G. (2026, September 12). Christopher Harborne matches £36m Reform donation of Ben Delo. The Guardian.
The Guardian articleMinistry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2026, July 6). The Rycroft Review: HM Government response. GOV.UK.
HM Government responseQuadrature Capital Limited. (n.d.). Corporate social responsibility. Quadrature.
Quadrature corporate social responsibility pageRycroft, P. (2026, March 25). The Rycroft Review: Report of the independent review into countering foreign financial influence and interference in UK politics. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The Rycroft ReviewUK Parliament. (2026, September 3). Representation of the People Bill: HL Bill 47 (as brought from the Commons). UK Parliament.
Official Representation of the People Bill page