The claim — "Hope Not Hate's spending therefore needed to be authorised by Andy Burnham's campaign" — is a legal interpretation advanced in Nigel Farage's complaint to the Electoral Commission. It asserts that UK electoral law required Hope Not Hate's spending on the Makerfield by-election to be authorised by Andy Burnham's candidate campaign (i.e., his election agent). Two distinct legal frameworks potentially apply to third-party spending at a UK parliamentary by-election: 1. **Local non-party campaigning (s.75, Representation of the People Act 1983):** Electoral Commission guidance states that "local non-party campaigners" can spend up to £700 on campaigning for or against a candidate in a constituency without authorisation. Spending above that "permitted sum" requires written authorisation from the candidate's election agent, and the authorised amount counts towards the candidate's spending limit. On this framework, if Hope Not Hate's leafleting in Makerfield cost more than £700 and was "for" Burnham as a candidate, the claim would have support. 2. **Controlled/targeted expenditure (PPERA 2000):** Hope Not Hate Limited is registered with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner. Under PPERA, "targeted spending" — spending reasonably regarded as intended to promote one particular registered party or its candidates — is subject to limits. Spending above the targeted spending limits must be authorised by the registered political party (Labour's treasurer/deputy treasurer), not the candidate's campaign. Spending up to those limits can be incurred without authorisation. Which framework governs Hope Not Hate's specific spending — and whether the relevant thresholds were crossed — has not been adjudicated by the Electoral Commission. Hope Not Hate has stated that its campaigning "was carefully tracked so as to remain within relevant electoral law spending limits," and the Charity Commission separately found that the charitable trust's funds were not used for the leaflets (they were funded by supporter donations to the non-charitable entity). No public evidence establishes the exact amounts spent, whether the £700 local-campaigning threshold or the PPERA targeted-spending limits were exceeded, or how the spending should legally be characterised. Because the claim is a definitive legal conclusion about a specific, unadjudicated situation, and the publicly available evidence does not establish which legal regime applies or whether the thresholds requiring candidate-campaign authorisation were met, it cannot be verified as true or false on the present record. **Sources:** - Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (Guidance for Candidates and Agents, UK Parliamentary by-elections) — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/guidance-candidates-and-agents-uk-parliamentary-elections-great-britain - Electoral Commission, "Non-party campaigners: UK Parliamentary general elections" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/full-guidance/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections - Electoral Commission, "Non-party campaigner Code of Practice" — https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigner-code-practice - Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Part VI (legislation.gov.uk) — https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/part/VI/2025-04-14 - 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 - Third Sector, "Charity cleared by commission after Farage complaint" — https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/charity-cleared-commission-farage-complaint/governance/article/1962712 - Wigan Today, "Farage accuses Hope Not Hate of 'conflict of interest' over Makerfield leaflets" — https://www.wigantoday.net/news/people/farage-accuses-hope-not-hate-of-conflict-of-interest-over-makerfield-leaflets-8643934