The claim "Additional spending by a local non-party campaigner counts towards the candidate's spending limit" is an accurate statement of UK electoral law under Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA). The Electoral Commission's guidance on local campaigning explicitly states: > "A local non-party campaigner cannot spend more than this permitted sum without the agent's written authorisation to incur the additional spending, which will count towards the candidate's spending limit." And further: > "Money that is incurred by campaigners in local campaigns that has been authorised by the agent is candidate spending and counts towards the spending limit." Here's how the law works: 1. **Permitted sum**: A local non-party campaigner can spend up to a "permitted sum" (at parliamentary elections, £700; at local elections, £50 + 0.5p per elector) on campaigning for or against a candidate without needing any authorisation. 2. **Additional spending**: If the campaigner wishes to spend **more** than the permitted sum, they must obtain **written authorisation from the candidate's election agent**. This additional (authorised) spending then counts towards the candidate's own spending limit. 3. **Reporting**: The authorised additional spending must be reported both by the non-party campaigner (to the Returning Officer within 21 days of the result) and included in the candidate's spending return. 4. **Without authorisation**: Spending over the permitted sum without the agent's written authorisation is an offence under section 75 RPA. In the context of Farage's tweet, he was complaining to the Electoral Commission about Hope Not Hate Limited's campaigning in the Makerfield by-election, alleging they may have breached electoral spending limits. The claim about how the law treats additional spending by local non-party campaigners is factually accurate as a description of UK electoral law. The one important qualification is that the additional spending only counts towards the candidate's limit **if it is authorised by the candidate's agent**. The claim as stated doesn't make this qualification explicit, but it is implied — the mechanism by which additional spending counts towards the candidate's limit is precisely through the agent's authorisation. Without authorisation, the spending is simply unlawful. Sources: - Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (guidance for candidates and agents at local government elections in England): https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-government-elections-england/candidate-spending/local-campaigning - Electoral Commission, "Local campaigning" (guidance for local authority mayoral elections in England): https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-local-authority-mayoral-elections-england/candidate-spending/local-campaigning - Electoral Commission, "What is a non-party campaigner?": https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/non-party-campaigners-uk-parliamentary-general-elections/what-a-non-party-campaigner - Section 75, Representation of the People Act 1983: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/75 - Civil Society, "Farage files second Hope Not Hate complaint after charity cleared" (25 June 2026): 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" (June 2026): https://leftfootforward.org/2026/06/nigel-farage-in-meltdown-over-hope-not-hate-as-he-files-a-second-complaint-in-under-a-month/