Senior Labour MPs urge government to ban cryptocurrency political donations

[Oshosondy]

Is transparency, traceability and enforceability should be the reason bitcoin and other coins should be banned from political donations when the fiat that they thought are traceable may not be totally traceable?

The government increasingly believes that donations made with cryptocurrency pose a risk to the integrity of the electoral system, not least because the source can be hard to verify. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/11/senior-labour-mps-urge-government-to-ban-cryptocurrency-political-donations

The reason I created this topic is to ask if they think bitcoin and other coins can not be traced and enforceable, and also not transparent, why all the big laws on the citizens? In UK, it has gotten to the point that people are said to declare their noncustodial wallet addresses.

These laws were made because they want to effectively tax crypto users, but are they saying that politicians will not be able to be taxed in cryptocurrencies if they are involved in cryptocurrencies. This is not what they meant but they are related.

[Wiwo]

Perfect scenario, a politician delivers 10 millions in cash 💸,  buy votes ring election,  zero traces, no one can ever prove that cash have exchange hands, even money laundering most time are untraceable still yet passed through the banking system where some details can get deleted or concealed in a way that investigators can never trace.

Bitcoin transactions history is stored in just one single system call blockchain whatever transactions that is made using bitcoin,  the history remain permanent and available to public as long as the wallet address is made public.

Government stand to gain alot by adopting bitcoin as mode of making donations and we shouldn't entertain the reason stated as being untraceable when every information is available on the blockchain no one can ever delete that history.

[tbct_mt2]

Is transparency, traceability and enforceability should be the reason bitcoin and other coins should be banned from political donations when the fiat that they thought are traceable may not be totally traceable?

The reason I created this topic is to ask if they think bitcoin and other coins can not be traced and enforceable, and also not transparent, why all the big laws on the citizens? In UK, it has gotten to the point that people are said to declare their noncustodial wallet addresses.

These laws were made because they want to effectively tax crypto users, but are they saying that politicians will not be able to be taxed in cryptocurrencies if they are involved in cryptocurrencies. This is not what they meant but they are related.

It is not all about tax policies on their citizens. They can do this without this policy against cryptocurrency donation to politicians.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are helpful for someone who want privacy, and it's helpful for everyone not only for politicians or donators. The UK has become a far left nation with censorship against freedom of speech, freedom in privacy and finance.

They even have wanted and tried to ban X social media at the UK but I doubt that they will succeed as the UK people will fight against government with approval and enforcement with this policy that harms general freedom in the nation for all the people there.

[Cookdata]

Just another 7 foolish people that are scared of crypto candidates. They know that whoever support crypto bills will get not only donations but full support of crypto community, they felt threaten by that and they want a way to divert the attention so they don't lose their voices and people.

If election is free and fair without fat fiat donations from caucus, I'm sure many of them will not be in that parliament. By the way, what's leadership without the voice of the people, it's not their call to sideline what people want, if other people want to donate any assets and are acceptable, then Bitcoin and any other crypto asset are welcome as well.

Why not learn from the United States last election, when Donald Trump was receiving crypto donations through his website, there wasn't a single voice or any political party that raises a concern. It's either they join the movement or they should retire, they are not making the voices of the people to law, this is a personal interest if you ask me.

[rat03gopoh]

The reason I created this topic is to ask if they think bitcoin and other coins can not be traced and enforceable, and also not transparent, why all the big laws on the citizens? In UK, it has gotten to the point that people are said to declare their noncustodial wallet addresses.

Does that mean crypto can be traced if it's a civilian and untraceable if it's a politician? It's not about which currencies can and cannot be traced, but whether all the laws they create can be universally enforced and penetrate the "invisible" political shield.

I don't know about other countries, but in my country, politicians wield shadow power from the elite (collusion), making it difficult to enforce legally.

[Taskford]

Just another 7 foolish people that are scared of crypto candidates. They know that whoever support crypto bills will get not only donations but full support of crypto community, they felt threaten by that and they want a way to divert the attention so they don't lose their voices and people.

If election is free and fair without fat fiat donations from caucus, I'm sure many of them will not be in that parliament. By the way, what's leadership without the voice of the people, it's not their call to sideline what people want, if other people want to donate any assets and are acceptable, then Bitcoin and any other crypto asset are welcome as well.

Why not learn from the United States last election, when Donald Trump was receiving crypto donations through his website, there wasn't a single voice or any political party that raises a concern. It's either they join the movement or they should retire, they are not making the voices of the people to law, this is a personal interest if you ask me.

It seems they are trying to implement that for the benefits of their parties, especially they are well know anti Bitcoin or cryptocurrency politicians since people will not think about voting them. Because for sure they know that they cannot get the voters of those people use cryptocurrencies. This politicians shows how greedy they are and they are not really listening to people so much better don't vote for this officials so there's no crazy implementation that they don want to happen.

For sure they learn about how Donald Trump adopt but maybe some politicians can't adopt since maybe this is their party stance. That's why instead changing their tradition maybe this is their way to eliminate those things that can give advantage to their opponents.

[FortuneFollower]

The reason I created this topic is to ask if they think bitcoin and other coins can not be traced and enforceable, and also not transparent, why all the big laws on the citizens? In UK, it has gotten to the point that people are said to declare their noncustodial wallet addresses.

Does that mean crypto can be traced if it's a civilian and untraceable if it's a politician? It's not about which currencies can and cannot be traced, but whether all the laws they create can be universally enforced and penetrate the "invisible" political shield.

I don't know about other countries, but in my country, politicians wield shadow power from the elite (collusion), making it difficult to enforce legally.

I too agree on the fact that each country has its own can of worms to unpack.. but usually, especially in the countries that are not the first world ones, there are lots of loopholes that politicians take to avoid being caught / get taxed less / etc.

The laws work for the government mostly, not for its people.

[Alpha Marine]

Just another 7 foolish people that are scared of crypto candidates. They know that whoever support crypto bills will get not only donations but full support of crypto community, they felt threaten by that and they want a way to divert the attention so they don't lose their voices and people.

This is a good point, and knowing how politicians play politics, I can't even rule this out as their reason for this. They are ready to play any game as long as it favours them. They all act like saints and all, but they would accept donations in any currency or account as long as they and their party win.

This is not about opposing innovation. It is about protecting democracy with rules that work in the real world.”

This is how they disguise their true intentions with "democracy".
In my opinion, they just do not want their donations to be public. They don't want everybody to have access to the amount of money they have received in donations and where it is coming from. These donations are also a scheme that shady politicians use to launder money. They want them and their team to be the only ones who see the money that goes into the account, and they know that with Bitcoin and crypto, everybody can see the contents of the address on the blockchain.

[melinoe]

Just another 7 foolish people that are scared of crypto candidates. They know that whoever support crypto bills will get not only donations but full support of crypto community, they felt threaten by that and they want a way to divert the attention so they don't lose their voices and people.

This is a good point, and knowing how politicians play politics, I can't even rule this out as their reason for this. They are ready to play any game as long as it favours them. They all act like saints and all, but they would accept donations in any currency or account as long as they and their party win.

Any game they play in is rigged from the start, one way or another, depending on the country.

Control is all they dream about.

[348Judah]

Is transparency, traceability and enforceability should be the reason bitcoin and other coins should be banned from political donations when the fiat that they thought are traceable may not be totally traceable?

Let's leave them to tackle themselves, some will come in support for this, while at the same time, I know some people will kick against it, as for bitcoin, they can't do anything to distort the system, not even at their highest threat to attack the system, because it's an independent network, bitcoin was created for us and not for them, so I expected more of this or similar coming continuously.

[Spaceman1000$]

I don't believe there's anything to be afraid of since the donation is for campaign for political parties, I don't think anything is wrong with free will donations using cryptocurrency, if you want to look at it critically, it will not affect the electoral umpire, this is not as though the donation is to influence the electoral umpire from tampering with the results, it is mere donation to political parties for their campaign. Why are politicians being trickish with some of their intentions, I can personally decide to donate to a political party for an election campaign without wanting my identity to be known, so if cryptocurrency gives a fair advantage to me to do that then why not.

[Lida93]

Perfect scenario, a politician delivers 10 millions in cash 💸,  buy votes ring to rig election,  zero traces, no one can ever prove that cash have exchange hands, even money laundering most time are untraceable still yet passed through the banking system where some details can get deleted or concealed in a way that investigators can never trace.

Corrected that "ring". You can thank me later

You actually get the picture just as it is even though they try to cover up their real intentions for making these laws against bitcoin and othe cryptocurrencies. They can't delete the transactions record on the ledger and they can do with fiat transactions through the assistance of the corrupt traditional banking system. Cash money always exchanges hands during elections which can't be traced and that's exactly what they want to continue doing because with bitcoin any form of financial distributions relating to the influence of votes can be traced.
 

Bitcoin transactions history is stored in just one single system call blockchain whatever transactions that is made using bitcoin,  the history remain permanent and available to public as long as the wallet address is made public.

Government stand to gain alot by adopting bitcoin as mode of making donations and we shouldn't entertain the reason stated as being untraceable when every information is available on the blockchain no one can ever delete that history.

Is it for common men like us to teach the government about all these things when they already have experts that are deeply rooted in the knowledge of how cryptocurrency operates but as a result of their inability to control it they are cut in the middle with flimsy excuses.

[NotATether]

Obviously it's to stop Tories and far-right from having crypto donors, what else? 

I doubt Labour has many such donors anyway, so this doesn't really hurt them.

We will see what happens with this proposal and where it goes, but if you believe in the principle that Nothing Ever Happens(TM), this probably isn't going to go anywhere.

[Furball808]

There are ways to verify a user from transactions alone. There are crumbs left and if one is simply smart to follow it, they’ll be able to verify. But that’s not really the issue. The fact that we can see which ones received how much amount is something helpful. Politicians should always be questioned where their money is coming from.

The government increasingly believes that donations made with cryptocurrency pose a risk to the integrity of the electoral system, not least because the source can be hard to verify. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jan/11/senior-labour-mps-urge-government-to-ban-cryptocurrency-political-donations

IMO, Some politicians may just be against crypto because they’re scared they will be exposed for their actions.

[Amphenomenon]

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are helpful for someone who want privacy, and it's helpful for everyone not only for politicians or donators. The UK has become a far left nation with censorship against freedom of speech, freedom in privacy and finance.

Going through the link, this got me:

“Other democracies have already acted. The UK should not wait until a scandal forces our hand. This is not about opposing innovation. It is about protecting democracy with rules that work in the real world.”

Is there still Democracy in the way things are going there?

Anyway, they are bringing justification with Russia interference of democracy globally, although I don't know about that but I do know that UK do have an issue with Russia and now using it to justify an unnecessary act, as if they were interfering with democracy globally they started now. Won't they go back to the fiat they were and are still using?
 

[retreat]

Campaign groups argue online transactions ‘present real risks to our democracy’ as it is hard to trace their true source

I didn't know that crypto could pose a threat to democracy right now. But aren't they the ones hindering democracy by trying to block crypto donations? If they care so much about this, shouldn't they be pushing for transparency and clear regulations, instead of unilaterally banning and restricting access to crypto donations. These MPs are just hypocrites, pretending they never accept bribes from external parties, even though they receive far more, smh.