The revolving door describes one route through the system. There is another. Between 2013 and 2023, 68 of the 284 peers nominated by party leaders were political donors, giving a combined £58 million. Fifteen of sixteen Conservative Party treasurers received peerages after donating £3 million or more. A political donor is 200 times more likely to receive a peerage than an ordinary party member, and 20,000 times more likely than the average voter. Money does not formally buy a seat in the Lords, but the correlation between donation and appointment is strong enough that it is not a coincidence. On the patronage figures alone, wealthy donors are the single most over-represented group in the chamber that scrutinises legislation. A seat in the Lords is not just an honour. It is a position inside the architecture, with access to committees, appointment processes, and the fast-track channels through which public money flows. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with appointing donors to public roles. Active citizens contributing to causes they support is how democracy works, and people who have been politically engaged often bring relevant experience to the institutions they are appointed to. The problem is when the process for screening those appointments breaks down.
United States (National)
