The claim "Hope Not Hate's expenses could not have remained below £700" concerns whether Hope Not Hate Limited's regulated campaign spending during the Makerfield by-election necessarily exceeded the £700 threshold that applies to non-party campaigners under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA). The £700 figure is real: under PPERA section 89A, a third party that is not an eligible/notified non-party campaigner may not incur more than £700 in controlled expenditure during a regulated period. The Electoral Commission's own guidance confirms this threshold exists. Nigel Farage alleged that Hope Not Hate "racked up thousands of pounds in spend in the month leading up to the by-election on Facebook alone" (Left Foot Forward, 2026-06), arguing this made it impossible for the organisation to have stayed below the £700 limit. He wrote to the Electoral Commission demanding an investigation. However, the publicly available evidence does not establish the actual spending amount. Hope Not Hate responded that its "campaigning in Makerfield was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits" (Civil Society, TFN, Third Sector, 2026-06). The Charity Commission — a separate regulator dealing with a related but different complaint about the charitable arm — concluded that the charity's funds were not used to produce or circulate the leaflets, but this does not tell us how much the non-charity (Hope Not Hate Limited) itself spent on regulated campaign activity. No Electoral Commission finding, audited spending return, or Facebook Ad Library data showing the actual regulated spending figure has been made public in the sources available. The claim rests on an allegation by one political actor and is disputed by the organisation itself, but the underlying financial data needed to verify whether spending did or did not exceed £700 is not publicly available. This is a well-defined, fact-shaped assertion about actual expenditure, but the evidence required to confirm or refute it is not in the public domain. Sources: - Electoral Commission, "Spending more than £700 on regulated campaign activities," https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/overview-non-party-campaigner-requirements/spending-more-ps700-regulated-campaign-activities - Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (s.89A), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/chapter/II/crossheading/which-third-parties-may-incur-expenditure/2025-01-01 - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared," https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/farage-files-second-hope-not-hate-complaint-after-charity-cleared.html - Left Foot Forward, "Nigel Farage in meltdown over Hope not Hate as he files a second complaint in under a month," https://leftfootforward.org/2026/06/nigel-farage-in-meltdown-over-hope-not-hate-as-he-files-a-second-complaint-in-under-a-month/ - Third Sector, "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint," https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - TFN, "Farage escalates Hope Not Hate row," https://tfn.scot/news/farage-escalates-hope-not-hate-row