This the Bennett twit header from your OP. No <£500 definitely >£500 in the EC quote attached also from Bennett's twit 43
Hugh Bennett@HughRBennett 22h22 hours ago
More
Hi
@ElectoralCommUK will you also be "attending"
@peoplesvote_uk's office tomorrow for a "review of the systems it has in place to receive funds" in light of reports on its own website about its "ability to ensure donations received via its website are from a permissible source"?
Followed by:-
You must log in or register to see images
The story about "donations received via its website" is about the <£500 donations. The EC itself is talking about donations above £500. The tweets that triggered this and prompted Brown, and others, to chime in (followed by the EC deciding it would to) were the same as Bennett's where they were pointing to the fact that you can write any name and be from anywhere and donate <£500.
So the narrative of the story is ignoring the actual detail here. We have "up in arms" statements devoted to attacking the <£500 (£499) part of it, and the EC detailing the rules as they are yet are going in to check on >£500 (because there is nothing they can do about <£500 donations.)
Watch and read the news about it. They are all talking about the <£500 donations in their story about the EC going in to investigate.
Now of course there is also the "foreign money" rule which could well be something BP fall foul of however we would then be led to believe that other parties do not receive money from overseas, when the reality is that they do, and a lot of it. Normally because someone has set up "UK based" organisations that they fund and then that UK organisation is the one that makes the donations. The CHuk one is a prime example of that.
Even then the EC confirmed to buzzfeed (in the thread at the bottom further down
I checked this with the Electoral Commission a few weeks ago and their response was that
“Political parties can receive sums of money from foreign nationals if it’s under £500.”
Soros funded organisations (yes him again) also do this and yes they are subject to the same rules because they are "non party campaigns" because they qualify, just as @bydonkeys do as "non party campaigns" because they actively campaign against voting a particular way and they actively promote voting for a party or parties. People's vote is the same, all of the "not people's vote but they actually are" groups that the EC ignored are as well because they actively campaign against Brexit and thus they are funded via "charidees" or "activist groups" that are themselves funded by Soros and others that are not UK based. These donations however are above the £500 threshold and thus cannot avoid the "UK based" rules nor anonymity.
the whole setup across the board (including the Brexit Party) is the problem here in that the rules are there to be ignored by way of loopholes and the equivalent of creative accounting.
This was where it all kicked up. This story is all about <£500 donations, implying it is a BP thing, ignoring they are all doing the same and then the media reports the EC going in to investigate based on this story that all the reman bigwigs and twitterati have jumped on:
You must log in or register to see media
