George Monbiot is surely right that large private donations poison democratic trust, whether or not corruption can ever be shown (Political donations are poison to our democracy – but there’s an easy antidote to that, 30 April). The damage lies not only in any favour bought but in the suspicion created. When one billionaire can appear to sustain a political party, politics begins to look less like representation and more like private ownership.

Monbiot’s membership-based model has moral weight. It would force parties to organise among citizens rather than flatter wealth and it would make politicians seek members, not patrons. That alone would change the culture.

But I am not convinced that membership should be the sole measure of democratic legitimacy. Membership favours parties with highly motivated activist bases. At one moment that might benefit the Greens; in another it might benefit Reform UK, the Scottish National party, or any party able to mobilise a surge. Members matter but they are definitely not the whole public. Most people vote, argue, care, worry and pay tax without ever joining a party.

A fairer system would combine a mix of several democratic signals. Ban or tightly cap large donations. Match a set level of small individual donations and modest membership fees with public money. Add a per‑vote element from the previous election, with protections for smaller and new parties so that the system does not simply preserve the existing order.

There should be much lower spending caps, donations published in real time and the Electoral Commission given the powers and resources to enforce the rules properly.

The principle should be simple: political money should follow citizens. It should reflect members, small donors and voters, but never leave parties dependent on one rich individual, one industry, or one opaque network of interests. This would make corruption harder, dependency rarer and suspicion less corrosive. That matters because the current system does not merely fund parties badly. It teaches people to distrust democracy itself.
Jonathan Spencer
Ringmer, East Sussex

I welcome any thinking about how to rid politics of the corruption of billionaire and corporate donors. However, the solution proposed (limiting donations to a standard membership fee, multiplied by government funding) still exposes the inequalities at work.

Wherever you placed the threshold, you would be including those who can afford it and effectively excluding those who can’t. So rich people can afford to fund parties who cater to them and the parties sticking up for those in poverty aren’t rewarded with the resources to do so effectively.

Yes, placing a £25-per-person cap might be better than the current situation, but can we think even further about how we fund a fair political system where money and power are completely decoupled? For example, The minimum concessionary rate for Green party membership is currently £6 per year.
Rachel Powild
Manchester

Why are such political donations permitted at all? And if they are, why are they not treated as automatically setting up a conflict of interest? No MP and no party accepting a donation from, for instance, a developer should be allowed to speak or vote on any planning issue.

Pharmaceuticals or private medicine? No say on the NHS. Fossil fuel companies? No say over energy policy. As a matter of principle and probity, policy must not be bought and must not appear to be bought. Why is this not law already?
Katy Jennison
Witney, Oxfordshire