Christopher Harborne gave Reform £9m in one day – more than double the amount all trade unions combined gave Labour nationally and its MPs directly for the entirety of the last general election.(克里斯托弗·哈伯恩一天内给改革党900万英镑，是上次大选所有工会给工党捐款总额的两倍多。) Once such “largesse(慷慨赠予，施舍)” in our politics was rare, now it is commonplace(平常的，普通的). In 2015, just 1% of donations were from individuals and companies giving £1m or more – by 2024, that figure was a third. The chequebook(支票簿)s of the rich and powerful(权贵，有钱有势者) are already circling the next election. The question for Labour is, are we prepared to pay the price if we refuse to stop them?
克里斯托弗·哈伯恩在一天之内向改革党捐赠了900万英镑——这比所有工会在上次大选期间向工党全国及工党议员直接捐赠的总额还要多一倍以上。曾经，这种政治上的“慷慨”实属罕见，如今却已司空见惯。2015年，只有1%的捐款来自个人和公司，且金额达到100万英镑或以上；到2024年，这一比例已升至三分之一。权贵们的支票簿已经在围绕下一届大选盘旋。工党面临的问题是：如果我们拒绝阻止他们，我们准备好付出代价了吗？
The prime minister deserves credit for recognising how toxic(有毒的，极其有害的) this has become and the public support for action too. As a result, on Wednesday, measures to cap what overseas donors can give will come before parliament in the representation of the people bill. Yet focusing on location rather than the level of a donation misses how wealthy individuals can set up a UK shell company(空壳公司) or use a UK postcode to continue to dominate our democracy. With several British millionaires already funding political entities and parties and others waiting in the wings, our goal must be to ensure no one – near or far – can buy Westminster.(鉴于已有几位英国百万富翁在资助政治实体和政党，还有更多人在伺机而动，我们的目标必须是确保没有人——无论远近——能够收买威斯敏斯特。)
首相值得称赞，因为他认识到这个问题已变得多么有害，也认识到公众对采取行动的支持。因此，周三，在《人民代表法案》中，限制海外捐赠者捐款额度的措施将提交议会审议。然而，只关注捐款来源地而非金额，就会忽略富人如何通过设立英国空壳公司或使用英国邮政编码来继续主导我们的民主。鉴于已有几位英国百万富翁在资助政治实体和政党，还有更多人在伺机而动，我们的目标必须是确保没有人——无论远近——能够收买威斯敏斯特。
Labour is yet to(尚未，还没有) commit to this because some are uneasy(不安的，忧虑的) that capping(设定上限，限制) individual donations could lead to calls to cap collective donations from membership organisations and trade unions. This is not the first time this fear has led to inaction. The Phillips review of party funding in 2007(2007年菲利普斯政党资金审查) collapsed over this dilemma, despite support from major Labour donors including Lord Sainsbury for a cap. With hindsight, we can see how this opened the door for(为……打开大门，为……创造条件) the crisis we now face.
工党尚未对此作出承诺，因为一些人担心，限制个人捐款可能会导致有人呼吁限制来自会员组织和工会的集体捐款。这已经不是这种恐惧第一次导致无所作为了。2007年，尽管包括塞恩斯伯里勋爵在内的工党主要捐助者支持设置上限，但菲利普斯关于政党资金的审查仍因这一困境而失败。事后看来，我们可以看到这如何为我们现在面临的危机打开了大门。